To win my ballot, you will need to speak at a rate that I can understand what you are saying. In addition, please make sure that your arguments are backed with evidence, but are not absent logic.

my email address is:

Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org

Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.

For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.

I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.

These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:

• Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.

• I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments

• I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round

• A disrespectful team will most often lose the round

• Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to

• I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented

• Please do not spread, I asked nicely.

• Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy

• Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.

• As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.

• Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.

LC Anderson 22

UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

ld: Tech > Truth

Policy---Best for this. cp debates are fine to an extent, but best to evaluate substance.

Theory---Would prefer if the brightline for abuse was in–round. Out of round violations are generally unverifiable, putting me as a judge in an awkward position trying to evaluate a squabble between two debaters, but otherwise good.

Tricks---probs don't read that in front of me.

K’s---minimal knowledge. there's a chance i won’t know the literature base you are reading, but I can flow plus comprehend pretty well. Make sure that the 2NR/2AR slows down, does impact calculus and weighs between their offense and your offense. I will try my best to adjudicate and have no predisposed biases’ towards any critical argumentation, but can't guarantee a perfect eval.

phil - have read some bc of college but that being said you need to fill in the blanks for me big time

Other things:

Presumption is negative unless the 1NC introduces a counter advocacy to the 1AC, then it flips affirmative.

Competing Interps----X---------------------------Reasonability

Judgekick----------------X----Debaters Kicking

Infinite Condo----------X-----------No Condo

if you have a question about any of these ask me before round!

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, love a line by line, defense is not sticky, extend it in every speech if you want it evaluated; for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of a cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round - for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

Hi all!

I am a parent judge and I'd appreciate it if you would go slow and explain your arguments clearly.

I'm not going to flow in the traditional sense, but I'll be taking notes.

Once again, I'm a parent judge with most of my judging experience from judging younger debaters on our local city circuit.

So please adapt: speak slowly + clearly, don't turn dump, warrant clearly, have a narrative, and explain all jargon. I won't be voting for unwarranted things nor badly explained/extended offense. I'm looking forward to hear your arguments, Ramesh Babu

Former high school Debater and Speechie, current high school teacher. Firm believer that debate should be inclusive and educational.

About Me: Hi! I'm a parent judge who's judged a number of LD and Speech tournaments over the past several years.

Speech

I understand that each speech event is a bit different, but generally, I will judge your speech based on: topic/piece selection; your technical speaking skills (enunciation, projection, etc.); both the sharpness of your movements as well as the extent to which your physicality feels natural and unrehearsed; your ability to engage me in the topic or piece (do you make me think about a complex issue in a new way? Do you move me to genuine tears or laughter?); your ability to inhabit the characters and world of the story (Interp); and the flow and persuasiveness of your speech (OO). I view speech activities from the perspective of a former courtroom lawyer as well as a former theater kid.

LD

I was not a debater in school but I'm a (former) litigator whose instinct is to view LD as analogous to some of the hardest fought cases I argued in court.

Framework/Standards Debate: Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating LD, I want to hear about the resolution.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts, and link back to the standards to provide a well-researched, well-reasoned case position. I will be listening for case positions that are supported by research and evidence.

I strongly prefer argument-focused rounds over technicality- or definition-focused rounds. I won't be able to follow the intricacies of a technicality-focused round, so it will not help you anyway.

I will flow anything that I can of what you run, and evaluate based on my flow. I am not familiar with the K or with theory. If you're running either I expect you to slow down on taglines, provide clear links and impacts (and a well defined alternative for the K). If I can't understand it, I can't evaluate it.

If running abstract Ks, complex theory with few links, or blippy philosophy with no clear in round and out of round applications, I am not the judge for you. I'm looking for something better developed and more understandable.

Speed: I take detailed notes throughout a round (don't worry; I'm a fast typer). Speaking too quickly -- especially spreading! -- likely just means I will miss a key point. Please speak slowly enough to ensure I catch every contention, piece of evidence, and rebuttal.

Time: Feel free to time yourself, but I will also track time. When time finishes, I will let you finish a word or phrase, but then I will cut you off.

RFD and Speaker Points: My decision will be in favor of, and I will award the most speaker points to, the debater who best provides analytically sound arguments that tie directly to the resolution, effectively rebuts their opponent's arguments, establishes points in a logical, cogent manner, speaks clearly and confidently, holds my attention, particularly through (appropriate) humor and/or interesting but not convoluted or overly technical language, and maintains standards for decorum.

Good luck!

I've been judging and coaching various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever topic you're speaking on. That isn't to say that you should treat me as a lay person but rather you should not expect me to know the intricate literature on complicated topics that you have been doing massive research on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have. I prioritize fairness and transparency as much as possible.

If you're curious as to what kind of judge I am: the PF Discord says that I am tech, flay, fake tech, a worlds coach, and a hack. I'm not purposefully sandbagging my paradigm but I will say that I am human and I won't get it right every time.

If you're curious as to whether or not I'm a good judge: the people I voted for would say yes, and the people I voted against would say I'm a goober behind my back.

Predominately, I just try my best with the information given to me and try to keep any personal bias or prior information out of the round and I like to have things implicated within the speeches.

I will often default to the tried and true: I will vote for the least mitigated link into the biggest. properly weighed impact.

I have voted on everything you can think of - but they must be run well and correctly.

Most importantly, the reason why I don't try to preclude specific types of arguments is because I think everyone should be able to debate how they want - whatever you want to run in front of me, do it! The activity gets stagnant and exclusionary if everyone just did the same thing every time; there is no one way to debate and no one way to judge a round.

Feel free to challenge me and my perceptions, to educate and entertain me, and to have fun and enjoy the activity that we all have dedicated countless hours in doing.

Try to be kind to each other, stop calling each other lazy or adding quippy personal attacks to refutations; please don't speak loudly while another competitor is speaking and try to maintain decorum when you're not speaking [ie keep the over the top reactions, eye rolls, and laughter down while your opponent is giving a speech].

Hi. I'm a parent lay judge who did S&D in college and worked in communications. I'm looking for solid fundamental performance. I want you to be comfortable and feel supported while you're competing. I understand you want to improve, so the best way I can help you is to give you as much info as I can to help you succeed in future tournaments. I do expect everyone to be supportive of each other as audience members - if you want a HINT from me - be kind and attentive when others are speaking. Thank you for the opportunity to see your work in action! I'm cheering for you!

--Speech--

Hi y’all! My name is Fernando Cereceres. I’m a speech judge who specializes mostly in the interps.

Overall, within any speech, I like to see both physical control of your body within the space and verbal control over your speech. Facial expressions are EVERYTHING!!! Even within Extemp, oratory and info, showing us that you know/care about what you’re discussing is extremely important.

EXTEMP:

First and foremost, I judge based on who answered the question best through their 3 points. I then look at the content of each point and see how your sources/analysis tie back into your Q&A. Delivery/hand gestures in extemp are important as well. Make sure that your delivery matches the theme of the content you’re giving. For example, it’s probably a good idea to not have a super upbeat/happy vocal delivery when discussing international conflicts. Same goes for hand gestures, make sure they’re motivated and not just used for filler.

OO/INFO:

For both INFO and OO, I usually judge based off of topic, solutions/implications, and delivery. The topic should be something fresh and interesting, something that makes the audience go “what? I’ve never heard of that. That's so interesting.” This isn’t to say that if I’ve heard about your topic before then I’ll down you, but it’s all about how you present/perform the information as well. Solutions and implications should also be fresh and well thought out. They should be thought provoking for both the judge and the audience and should make us see your topic in a more nuanced way. Delivery should match the content of your speech. Whether it’s serious, funny, or impactful, your vocal delivery and gestures should match that.

INTERP:

I judge interps based on topic/argument, character work, and moments. The topic/argument of your piece should be fresh and intriguing. Why is your piece important for the audience and how does your argument introduce a new way of thinking for us? Character work is also extremely important within interp. Do you embody your character? Are the choices you make as the character authentic to who they are? Lastly, moments are extremely important within interp. What I mean by “moments” are the occurrences within the piece that you, the performer, decide to give special emotional significance to. For example, the climax of the piece should always be a “moment” where we get to sit with your character at the peak of their emotional journey. There are also moments outside of the climax where people layer the performance with emotion and subtext that contributes to character/plot development. Choose your moments wisely and commit to them 100%. I’m also a sucker for silence within a piece. Silence, if done right, can communicate much more effectively than words can.

Author's intent: I stand by the author's intent unless it’s part of the performer's argument to perform something outside of the literature's intended purpose. In that case, it must be explicitly stated within the intro as to how/why the performer decides to do something outside of the author's intent.

Background: Coach of Cinco Ranch HS (Katy ISD in Texas). 3rd year as Coach, 10th year as an educator. Did not participate in Speech & Debate in school. Honors/AP level English teacher, so assume that I know how to structure an argument and can follow your rationales.

IE Paradigm

Your event should dictate how you're approaching it: be funny for Humorous, weepy for Dramatic, emotive for Poetry/Prose, factual for Extemp, informative for... Informative. Just make sure you stay within the rules of your event (eye/physical contact, movement, boards, interactables, etc.).

PF/LD Paradigm

- My students would say that I am more of a Trad judge than Prog. Take that for what you will.

- Please keep the spread to a minimum. Even though I'm a coach, please treat me like I am a lay judge when it comes to speed. Don't spread like peanut butter and jelly.

- I do not know or particularly care about theories/kritiks, nor do I wish to. Personally I find that their usage takes away from the actual debating itself. Please save these tactics for a Tech judge that understands them. They will go totally over my head. If you want to ask beforehand if you can read this theory or that, assume that I will say no and just leave it at that.

- I do not need to be included on any email chain. That's for you and your teams to set up before we start the round. Please don't take up time in the round to set it up. Rounds are long enough as it is.

- Impacts matter more than just stating facts. Link the effect of your information instead of giving me a bunch of data and statistics without context.

- Don't get too lost in arguing over the definition of a specific word vs debating over the topic as a whole. Remember that you should have prepped cases on a topic, not on the wording of it.

- Keep discussions focused on the topic. Deviation from the stated resolution will hurt your side, as will irrelevant arguments and thoughts. I will be flowing your case as you talk.

- Be civil and respectful of each other. Articulate thoughts and counterpoints without making it personal. Don't just browbeat each other for the sake of your argument. Let opponents actually finish a point or thought before responding.

- Bullying your opponents will not yield positive results on the ballot. I will not hesitate to stop you mid-round to address any potential instances of disrespect or negativity, dock your speaker points, and address egregious incidents with your coaches later. Your coaches would do the same for you (I hope).

- While not necessary, do your best to reiterate your team's position at the end of your time (aff/neg, pro/con). Nothing more embarrassing than laying out a brilliant argument for your own side... and then telling me to vote for your opponent.

- Novices, feel free to ask me what you can do to improve as a competitor after the round is over. I'll do my best to teach you something.

In Public Address: I value your originality, creativity, and persuasive presentation of ideas of personal importance. Cite your sources, explain their importance, and tell me why it matters.

In Interp: It is crucial that you tell a story in a meaningful and impactful manner. Characterization, gestures and facial expressions, and, vocal variation will all add to the overall decision.

In Debate, DO NOT SPREAD. I'm not a fan and would like to flow your case. Speeding through your case with me will not help you. I won't evaluate K, T, or Theory positions. Make the debate simple for me to evaluate and you will be rewarded for that!

Overall speaking skills or/and argumentation are critical to winning! But remember the most important thing is that you learn!

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

*CURRENTLY NURSING A HUGE HEADACHE. PLEASE DO NOT YELL AT ME.*

Currently a coach and assistant director at Delbarton, I coach everything forensics: speech, congress, and debate as needed. I previously coached and competed in policy debate. I follow PF closely and track developments on the circuit by regularly spectating varsity rounds when not judging.

Offense vs. Defense: Offense is prioritized over defense, requiring thorough extensions, frontlining, and weighing. Winning with purely defensive arguments will be challenging. In other words, if I am voting on a turn, it needs to follow the same structure as a contention—claim, warrant, impact. It should not be a blip.

Speed and Clarity: I’ll do my best to keep up with your pace, but please remain clear; if clarity is lacking, flowing your arguments becomes difficult.

Speech Guidelines:
- The second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal’s points.
- Arguments in Final Focus should generally also appear in Summary, with proper extensions and frontlining. New weighing in Final Focus is allowed but should be relevant and responsive; avoid loading it all in the final speech.

Comparative Weighing: Please use comparative weighing for links and impacts, focusing on elements like timeframe, magnitude, or probability. Note that link clarity and impact strength are critical.

Argument Scope: I’ll consider any argument and come prepared with background knowledge on the topic, so tech > truth. However, I’ll vote down arguments that include blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, or fabricated evidence. I generally value topicality. Largely, I don't take friv theory seriously.

Accommodations and Crossfire: I am open to making accommodations for debaters—just ask beforehand. And remember, crossfire exchanges should be civil; there’s no need for excessive intensity. Keep your crossfire balanced. If it feels like you're hogging the crossfire, you probably are.

N.B. While I recognize that PF is as much a studied game of strategy as anything else, running a K or theory that your opposing team is ill-qualified to handle is not a winning strategy—it’s the enemy of genuine clash and, therefore, the enemy of quality debate. I will vote you down every time.

Email: jcorcoran@delbarton.org / greenwavedebate@delbarton.org

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom (no true at nationals). You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

Hi! I am Ryan, a college student and coach of Archbishop Molloy HS. I did Speech in HS for 3 years and had success on the local level (qualled for States/NCFLS). I coach most events offered, but even if I don't, I have had relative experience judging and learning about it over the last few years.

I highly prefer email chains, please send to rcurran@molloyhs.org

TLDR; I can judge prog rounds, but don't be too messy (explanation below). I am fine with speed, but don't do so without checking w opponents. Tech over truth, but don't abuse that to the highest limits! Oh and also weigh, because idk why I hear very little nowadays. Keep ample timing for it plz

HAVE FUN IN UR ROUNDS! I love silly/fun rounds and I think its a way for everyone to relax and take a little breather from being in the S&D world.

DISCLAIMER- I am hard of hearing, so I will need you to speak loud and clear. This is just to let you know in advance if you wonder why I ask you to repeat something. I am fine with speed, just PLEASE send me your case in advance. Also, if I cannot hear/understand you, I will say a verbal/nonverbal clear (either comes down as to what you prefer). Because of this, I will flow with the 1AC/1NC docs open but that does not mean I'll be relying on solely those.

Stole from WK Kay's paradigm:

Read this article.After reading that article, you should feel compelled to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Though at this point it should go without saying, I will make myself clear:I have a zero-tolerance policy for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and all other forms of bigotry, prejudice, hatred, and intolerance. You are smart enough to find impacts for the most esoteric and outlandish of arguments, I am certain you are aware of the impact of your words and actions on other people. Simply put: respect each other. We are all here to learn and grow together.

PF and LD:

Pref List--

Trad- 1

Policy-1

Theory/T- 2 (I like it when explained clearly but I don't suck up for friv theory that easily)

K- 2/3 (ensure you provide links and alt)

Phil-3/4 (not as familiar with it other than Util, bit of Kant, etc)

Tricks- Strike

I did like one college policy comp but just for ref-- I read soft left affs and Cap/Academy K with some T sprinkled in on neg. If this is your thing, go for it.

Overall debate pref-- Consider me as a half prog half lay judge. I love hearing debates that are unique and stand out but note that I started coaching/learning debate less than 2 years ago. I still love traditional debate just as much, also because it's the most familiar I am with when I was on the team and now. However, I am fine with whatever you run (obviously not something that's just blatantly wrong or ignorant, as well as tricks).

I am a huge fan of clear impacting/weighing. I need you to sign my ballot for me and remind me the offense/defense laid in the round.

Speed/Spreading-- I am fine with speed (as mentioned before), but let your opponents know before round. It makes me frown like this :( when varsity debaters spread/run progressive args without checking in with those beforehand

Frameworks-- If you use a FW in a round, make sure to extend it the whole round. Even in LD, where I will then just default the round on global util

Rebuttals/Extensions-- I grouped these two together because I need these two to be properly balanced and clear. Even w speed in round, I need a flow that tells me there are arguments carried over. Don't just give a 1-2 sentence extension for your case, really explain the essence of your args and their uniqueness.

Miscellaneous stuff--

Tech > Truth, but please for the love of god, don't abuse that. There are limits I will look at where there's absurd arguments (similar to what I said before about tricks)

Weigh weigh weigh. It helps me to see your arguments and to know WHY I should be voting for you.

Let me know where you are at during the round via signposting!!! This way I know where you are, and I don't have to worry about that. I want to at least hear your tags so I'm not lost where I am at.

Same thing with off time roadmaps, that'll help me a lot, but don't go on and on, just be short and simple.

I do flow most of the debate, and will also try to flow CX. As said before, I like to think that cross can be binding at certain moments. I like flowing on paper but will flow on my laptop if needed.

Congress:

I have realized that my preference for Congressional Debate may be different than others, so I wanted to list down some stuff I like to see in a chamber/round:

• Be clear and precise in your speech. Quality will outweigh quantity in my eyes. Even if you have 1-2 points in your speech, you have enough time to state your data, analysis, and more within each of them.
• Parliamentary procedure is key! I want to know that your performance is on point not just through your speeches, but your delivery of motions before/during/after.
• I have seen more walking in speeches the last year or so. I like it, but don't be too excessive.
• Clash clash clash. I cannot explain how crazy I've turned when speeches after the 2nd half of the round are just the same exact points
• Don't rehash points made before unless you REALLY have to give a speech and don't have any other choice.

Presiding Officer- I commend students who have taken on this role. It is not an easy feat, and can be screwed over during rounds. I will always start my PO within the Top 3-5 of the chamber.

• However, you are going to have to be consistent with your recency/overall charts. Take control of the round and stand your ground if needed.
• If you are doing an online tournament, I would highly recommend using index cards when giving time signals. There are references you can find on YouTube where previous PO's at nat circuit tournaments have used them.

Speech:

There's really nothing I have specific in terms of preferences for Speech, since it is typically obvious with the rules under each event.

• But, I will say that I am not a huge fan of excessive walking (as said before with Congress). I did Oratory, so I have seen and judged numerous speeches where this happens.
• In interp events, I really like technical use of the room/binder/piece. It can be hard sometimes, but note that this is a strong factor I take into account when judging.

If there are any specific questions you have before or after a round, just lmk. Any form of discrimination during rounds will result in an automatic drop. Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable space where you are able to delve into the world of argumentation and research.

You are here to prove your ability to reason and articulate your thoughts better than your opponents can. I'm not impressed by whoever can read pre-prepared speeches faster, that is not why you are here. If you want to practice speed-reading, go to a Slam Poetry night. Show me you can reason and back up your conclusions with superior evidence, and you have my ballot.

About Me:

I'm a 7th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

Debate:

I do not mind spreading. If you are an inarticulate spreader, then you will send me your case as well as your opponent:isabella.droginske@k12.wv.us

I strongly oppose paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches.

I greatly appreciate framework debates and debates that really investigate philosophical ideas. I have a fair knowledge base of Rawls, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mills, and general schools of thought.

I do not mind Ks but excessive T is something I feel very strongly against.

I believe that debate should have the highest form of decorum throughout. I do dock speaker point for lack of decorum and respect to your opponent, judge(s), and the art of debate.

I make final decisions based on my flow---Tabula Rasa.

—LD: I appreciate robust value debates. Don’t collapse. Flow value to your side.

--PF: I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round.

--Congress: I'm looking for analysis that engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

Speech: Do not be on your phone while a performer is performing in a round. Decorum counts.

Prepared events should know their times and be, well, prepared from the start.

—Extemp: Citations and organization are really important to me, but so is the entertainment part. Be compelling. Have an interesting AGD. Connect it at the end of your speech.

I am a lay judge. Be patient with me :)

Heyyyyy,

I debated for 2.5 years at Cal State Long Beach. I am now a debate coach at Cal State Long Beach. I was a K Debater running arguments pertaining to Afro-Pess, Misogynoir, Reproductive Justice (& Feminism in general), sexual politics, and colonialism. During my time at Long Beach I also competed in IPDA and Parli; also having debate experience in World Schools.

Please add my email to the chain: jaysynteacher20@gmail.com

Judging style:

I understand the debate space as an academic site centered on the development and dissemination of knowledge. Primarily a discursive activity, I want to know the importance of theorizing and discussing specific ideas within the space. I am very Truth over Tech and my RFDs will center logic and reason over the technical aspects of the debate (unless the technical is very glaring within the round). I am extremely receptive to historical and sociological theory and use these things to understand arguments.

Things I find helpful within debates: what is the role of the judge? How should I evaluate arguments? What about their plan, methodology, alt, etc. is bad or harmful? how do arguments interact with each other?

K AFFs:Your theory should be the foundation and the background of ALL of your explanations within the debate. You should be using the vocabulary of your 1AC throughout every flow. Please refrain from using buzzwords with no explanation. I like High Theory but don't assume I walk into the room knowing the specifics of your arguments. I expect K Affs to be able to adequately answer generic K's and FW.

Policy AFFs: Because I am Truth over Tech I would like to see y'all interact with such truths. For instance, if your opponents read Set Col and the 2AC extends the Russia/China advantages with generic extinction impacts, this will not move me. I would be impressed to hear how the specifics of your plan affect various indigenous groups or the project of settler colonialism in general. In essence, I would like particular interaction with the details of your opponent's arguments rather than proceed forward with "everyone dies under extinction, and this overwhelms the links"

Go ahead and speak at the speed you are most comfortable.

I flow on paper and I also tend to flow CX paying attention to interesting moments or points made.

I also pay heavy attention to the way power flows through the debate space and I am critical of the space people take up within round. With that said I like it when debates get heated but just make sure to be reasonable with one another.

Tell me how to navigate the debate. Persuade me and you have my ballot.

If you have any questions feel free to ask but other than that, Happy Debating!

Jaysyn Green (she/her)

Beach Forensics

I competed in public speaking and debate for six years and have now judged and coached it for 6. I prioritize information and my flow above all else. Please talk at a conversational pace, I would rather be able to understand and catch everything than you throw every single point you could possibly think of.

I am old. I have been coaching and judging for over 35 years. This means that much/most of my experience predates the existence of Public Forum. I competed primarily in Policy, Lincoln Douglas (in its first year of existence), and Extemp. I have coached Policy (in the Dark Ages), Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and assorted speech events.

Speed does not offend me. That said, I am OLD and have carpal tunnel syndrome, so my flow is sloooooow. I will not punish you with points if you are fast and clear, but there is a risk I may not get everything you want on my flow.

I do not like surprises, not even good surprises. I always peeked at my presents as a child. Arguments should be extended in the summary speech if you want to win on them in the final focus. I favor line by line until the final focus, which should crystalize the debate and provide clear impact calc.

I think topic wording is important and that it determines burdens. I like it when teams are explicit about what the topic wording demands. A kritik is just an argument. If you can explain how it affirms or negates the res, it's all good.

Plans and counterplans are not allowed. Don't blame me. I didn't make the rules. You chose this event, despite the rules. That said, I think it is fair (and even a good idea) to talk about how the resolution would be implemented (assuming it calls for action and is not simply a question of fact/value). One can do this by looking at real world, typical proposals for resolutional action. I also don't think that the affirmative should be stuck advocating the worst possible way to implement the resolutional policy.

Evidence is important. Cheating is bad. Read author and date cites. I will grudgingly allow paraphrased evidence, but the full text must be available and easily evaluable. By this I mean that it is not okay to paraphrase evidence and then, when asked to provide it, hand over a ten page document with no highlighting/underlining of the bits that you claim to be paraphrasing. If you cannot say, "this paraphrases these three lines of text in the original document," or something like that, I'm going to disregard this "evidence." Neither I nor your opponents should have to read through the entire document to assess whether your paraphrasing is accurate.

I hate crossfire, especially the Grand Cluster F*!k. Please don't yell or speak over each other. I recognize that this aspect of PF is conducive to chaos, and that you are not responsible for this design flaw. That said, I will punish you with speaker points if you make the crossfire worse than it has to be.

Argument > Style. This is debate. Style is reflected in speaker points.

I am a speech and debate coach and I have been coaching for the past 12 years. My teams compete in PF, BQ, IPDA, Congressional and Mock Trial. We also compete in all speech/IE events. We compete on the state (Arkansas), regional (MS, LA, TX), and national (NSDA, UKTOC, NHSMTC, EMPIRE) circuits in debate and speech events.

_______ ____________________________________________________________________________

DEBATE:

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed.

Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

I want to hear logical application of research in your case - don't just recite sources, actually apply it!

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else! (HINT: K's)

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you. ______________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Debate - This is a role play debate ( you are not a high schooler, you are an elected representative with constituents).

You still MUST HAVE CLASH!! Without clash, it's just dueling oratories! Listen to the other representatives and address their arguments.

Don't bring electronics up and read your speech off of your computer/iPad/phone. Look up and address your fellow representatives.

Ask good questions - don't preface questions and don't ask/lob "softball" questions.

Don't debate during questions - ask your question ONLY!!!

If you did not offer to PO the round, then don't attack the PO if they make mistakes. If you want it done better, then you need to run/volunteer to PO.

If you do run for/volunteer to PO, please make sure you know parliamentary procedure and how a congressional round works.

When using parli pro, make sure it is for the benefit of the round/chamber. It should be used move the round forward - not just to receive parli pro points and never to insult, embarrass, or belittle another competitor. Do not weaponize parliamentary procedure.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Speech/Forensics Events

Know your performance space and adjust your volume - I need to be able to hear you, but I also don't want my ears to hurt because you are too loud.

Yelling isn't acting!

Cussing & vulgar language is not necessary. Content should be appropriate - shock value is a no-go for me. If you're a talented performer, then you don't need a piece that is cringy.

Become that character from the very first words out of your mouth - I want to see that character in your eyes!

Every piece of blocking and movement should have a purpose and it should enhance your performance. Don't move just to move. Don't over block - allow the character to tell the story through their dialogue.

Know your piece! Your eyes should not be in your BB too much.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round!

Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

#lovenadrespect

#goodluckdontsuck

________________________________________________________________________

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile!!!!!!

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

The following aspects will be observed and evaluated:

-- Face/body expressions

-- Explicitness and clearness of point statements

-- Organization of your arguments (logic and logistics)

-- Contentions and supporting evidences (examples, data, citations, etc.)

-- Speech fluency and tone

-- Question asking and answering (relevance and significance to the topic)

-- (Politeness to opponent and judge)

I am a parent judge for Speech and PF.

Please make sure you speak clearly and not too fast so I can follow your argument and track the flow better.

Please be respectful to your opponents. Don't be mean. There is a difference between being aggressive and being mean.

Don't lie or misconstrue your evidence.

Good luck!

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 am primarily a speech coach, so effective public speaking and rhetoric skills appeal to me. I prefer debates that stay centered on the topic to kritiks. Please no spreading. I don't mind fast-paced arguments, but I'd like to be able to flow what is happening effectively, and for that to happen, I don't want to be missing huge chunks of your argument because of speed. Thanks!

I am a new judge to debate this year, but I am a prolific debater with my close friends. Having a political science and secondary education degree in social studies, I tend to value the quality of the argument over checking off boxes or responding to everything an opponent has posited, just to respond. Because I find much of the published content in the media and journals to be agenda driven, I am suspect of regular media opinion. I would rather hear a slower paced, well thought out argument than a quick recitation of quotes from generic media sources. I would rather hear a unique argument that demonstrates a wider view of a topic than a focused argument that is often just a copy of others thinking. Many people do not think from a strategic, multivariable mindset and get tunnel focused on checking the boxes. I get intrigued by the Yogi being esoteric as well as inspired by the child that smacks me in the face with the obvious point of view that, as an adult, I missed. Depth of thinking and looking at a strategic picture demonstrates thinking outside the box. Understanding that people, organizations, and governments act in their self interest, is a reality of life. Show me that you see the world around an issue and not just the issue, and I will listen more intently to you.

Email for Evidence: Stan.J.Hutchinson@gmail.com

Ovey Comeaux High School '23, Western Kentucky University '27

For IE/SPEECH EVENTS: I base ranks on passion, performance, and preparation. How much do you connect and care about your topic? How elevated and unique are you as a performer? How relevant and timely is your topic and how well do you understand it, as well as memorization?

Debate Paradigm:

Majority of my decision will be made on Clarity, Content, and Evidence.

How clear is the presentation of your information? How relevant, concise, and impactful is the content of your argument? Does the evidence support the claims and sides of your debate? A competitor who presents information in a way that I can repeat it back to you will, more times than not, get the win.

I am not biased on the medium of debate you take, but do consider how your form on debate contrasts or compares to the opponent. You want to build strong and virtually irrefutable arguments!

Above all: make the round YOURS. Have fun. Speech and Debate is, at its core, about expression, so express yourself. I am nothing but an observer, you are EVERYTHING! Good luck :)

Experienced Parent judge

email: vadajanak@gmail.com & hawkcxdebate@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/hers

About me-

Coach at Hendrickson High School in Pflugerville

TLDR:

Slow on speed, especially analytics and tags. You can ask for a speed test before the round.

First, do what you're good at! I would much rather judge a round that you are comfortable having than judge one where you are trying to match my paradigm word for word.

Given that you:

1) explain the claim, warrant, and impact to your arguments. You will have a better chance of me correctly evaluating your arguments the way you want me to. In most rounds, this is undervalued and teams just extend claims/tags.

2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario, K jargon, or weird philosophies. Help me out, so that I can help you out

3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and/or performative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round. A ROB goes a long way.

4) Write the ballot for me in your last speech, tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “When what they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]". If you tell me how to vote, why I should vote that way, and why it matters for the round, it will be an easier ballot for you.

5) It has also been a while since I have judged policy in person so please read slower (faster than convo speed but slow enough that you're not gasping for air every 4 seconds), at least on analytics. If you want to sample a speed for me before the round, just ask and I will let you know if that is too fast.

-Please note: there is a clear distinction between persuasion and passion and being rude. I do not take kindly to rudeness, and it will show in your speaks.

The real one:

1st: policy

2nd: WSD

Policy:

I was most comfortable doing a blend of traditional and progressive CX in high school. I ran PTX DA's, T, and Cap K the most out of every argument on the Neg. I ran soft left policy affs on the China, Education, and Arm Sales topics, but I ran a K Aff on immigration.

Affs:

You can run either a plan, K Aff, or a performative aff. I am more familiar and understanding of plan text aff's, but I really appreciate the literature and concepts behind the K aff's I have seen. Given that, I will probably need those types of aff's to be explained more in the later speeches and probably read at a slower speed.

DA's:

DisAds are probably my favorite cup of tea. My go to has always be the politics DA. I am familiar with probably every DA there is. Case specific links are always preferred. Don't just read 4 generic DA's unless that's all you have. However, if it is pretty generic, it will take less work for the aff to tell me no link. Also explain the internal link! The more you tell me about how we really get from the plan text to nuke war the better time we will both have. And please please please do real impact calculus and evaluation. Don't just say "The DA outweighs the case." Tell me why.

T:

I am a firm believer in the idea that a well ran T can be voted on in the 2NR. Given that, if you go for T, it should be the ONLY thing in the 2NR, and it should be easily explained and have voters.

CP's:

Tell me how the CP works, why its mutually exclusive, and specifically how it actually solves the aff and prevents the DA. And if you're going to put 8 different planks, tell me how each of those is important. If the Aff doesn't perm the CP or give me a good reason why it doesn't solve, I'll more than likely vote for it. If it is not specified by either team, I assume the CP is unconditional.

K's:

Like I said above, not my cup of tea, but I would like them to be. I'm familiar with Cap, Neolib, Set Col, and Queer Pess. so anything out of that area will need to be explained. Please use case/resolution specific links. You can read your "state action links" cards, but the aff has a pretty good footing to tell me why that's a bad link. UNLESS, state action is unique to your K and you explain to me how this isn't the same thing you read every round. Typically, the impact to the K and the Aff are drastically different so please tell me how to evaluate your systematic oppression impact to their nuke war. I hold K's to their alt's. Unless the Neg tells me why, how, and when the alt happens/who can engage with the alt/how the ballot plays a role in facilitating the alt, the Aff pretty much has free reign to tell me that the Alt doesn't solve.

Theory:

If your opponents have given you a real reason to run theory please do! I strongly believe in debaters having discussions with each other about how one of their actions was bad for debate. I also will vote off of Condo bad, especially if you read more than 5 off :)

WSD:

I started competing in WSD in 2016. The event has drastically changed since then, but I believe how it was 2016-2018 was the best version of it. In 2020, I was 2nd top speaker at TFA state and 12th top speaker at NSDA Nationals to give you some perspective. As a coach, I am a part of the WSD committee for TFA.

I'll evaluate the round in the three ways the ballot allows me to: style, content, and strategy. I will take into consideration the "flow", but just because you "lose the debate" in a technical sense does not mean you automatically lose. Nor if you win the technical parts does it guarantee that you will win the ballot.

Style:

Persuasion, tone, speed, and attitude in the round are things I will consider for your style points. Use your ethos, pathos, logos. This is WSD so do not spread. I also will dock your style points if you're rude or disrespectful to your opponents or to me. Also, don't just read off your paper for the entire first and second speeches. This event has lots of extemporaneous elements to it.

Content:

The first speech is super important to make sure that you can get full content points in the whole round. If the meat of your case isn't good, then you're going to have a rough time in the other speeches. If you're not defining words in the motion, explaining how your model works (if there is one) or giving synthesized examples in the different points, then you're going to have a hard time getting points here. Believe it or not, it is easy to tell when words are coming out of your mouth but nothing is really being said, you know? Just be logical and thoughtful with your words.

Strategy:

This is the most undermined point area in WSD in my opinion. It might be the lowest about of possible points, but most people rarely get them. If you set up your different points in a strategic way, ask POI's that you'll use in your next speech, and organize the debate to tell me not just why your opponents are losing, but also, reasons that you're winning, the points are yours to have. I appreciate organization and I believe that the way you set up your speech is a strategy of itself, so keep that in mind too.

POI's:

Please please please ask/state POI's!!!!!!!!!! Far too often do people not ask enough. A good POI will help get you points in style, content, and strategy. Even more so, ask POI's when your opponents are on a roll because you don't want to let them talk for 8 mins uninterrupted. BUT. Please note, there is a very clear difference in a good "aha! gotcha" POI and a rude uncalled for POI.

Also! you don't have to take every POI you get asked, but if you ignore every single one I will think you do not know what you are talking about or that you are not paying attention.

For Speech: I am from more of a theater background than speech background. The things that I am looking for in a speech are you ability to effectively communicate your piece, and did you just recite the piece or did your perform the speech.

For Debate: I am a traditional judge. I am a lay judge (sorry). I can not vote for things I don’t understand, so don’t talk fast… seriously, do not talk fast (I apologize to the progressive debaters… again). I’m a tabula Rasa judge, but i evaluate truth > tech, and I evaluate on predictability. I don’t really care what you run, just make sure I can actually understand your arguments. I prefer strength and confidence over aggression without substance. There should also be civility, not condescension. Convince me with common sense and logical reasoning.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a lay judge, I have limited experience as judge. I am a Dentist by profession.

Though I might have my personal opinions about any given topic, I will make sure my personal bias will not influence my decisions in the tournament. I will make sure my decisions will totally depend on the contestants knowledge, ability, competency and technical details of the topic given. I expect mutual expect between participants. Please speak clear and do not speak too fast, I want to make sure I follow what you are saying. Please be polite when you speak and do not interrupt the other speaker. I like the participants share their case to my email ravikanth23@gmail.com so that i can go over and will make sure i am not missing anything.

For Speaker Points:

1. Please be loud and clear.
2. Conversational speed talking.
3. Eye contact.

My Background

I coached for about 10 years at Diablo Valley College, where I coached Paliamentary debate (NPDA), IPDA, and NFA-LD. I've coached High School Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress for about 6 years now. I co-run a Youtube channel called Proteus Debate Academy, where I talk about debate.

I try to write as much feedback on ballots as I can, both in terms of advice and explaining how and why I made the decision I made.

Let's have a fun round with good vibes and great arguments.

What I Like Most to See in Rounds

Good link refutation and good weighing. In most rounds (that don't involve theory and so on) I'm left believing that some of the aff's arguments flow through and some of the neg's arguments flow through. Your impact weighing will guide how I make my decision at that point.

What I don't mind seeing

I'm comfortable with theory debate. I don't live and die for it, but sure, go for those arguments if they're called for.

If you're not familiar with the exact structure and jargon of a theory argument, all you need to know is that if you think your opponent did something unfair are bad for education, I would need to know (a) what you think debaters ought to do in those situations, (b) what your opponent did wrong that violates that expectation, (c) why your model for how debate should be is better than theirs, and (d) why you think that's a serious enough issue that your opponent should lose the whole round for it.

What You Should be Somewhat Wary of Running

I understand Kritiks. I've voted on many Ks, I'll probably vote on many more. But with that said, it's worth mentioning that I have a high propensity to doubt the solvency of most kritiks' alternatives. If you're running the Kritik, it might be really important to really clearly explain: who does the alt? What does doing the alt actually entail in literal terms? How does doing the alternative solve the harms outlined in the K?

If your K claims to have an impact on the real world, I should have a say in whether I want to cause that real world effect. I'm not gonna make decisions in the "real world" based on someone happening to drop an argument and now I have to murder the state or something.

How am I on speed?

I can keep up with speed. If you're going too fast, I'll call slow. With that said, it's important to me that your debating be inclusive: both of your opponent and your other judges. I encourage you to please call verbally say "slow" if your opponent is speaking too quicklyfor you to understand.Please slow down if that happens.If your opponent does not accommodate your request to slow down, please tell me in your next speech if you feel their use of speed harmed your ability to engage with the debate enough that they should be voted down for it. It's very likely that I'll be receptive to that argument.

Other Debate Pet Peaves

Evidence sharing in evidenciary debate formats. Have your evidence ready to share. If someone calls for a card, it's not acceptable for you to not have it or for it to take a lifetime to track the card down.

Please feel free to ask me more in-person about anything I've written here or about anything I didn't cover!

I am a Cancer with a Gemini moon and a Leo rising :)

I am currently a speech coach at the Potomac School with 10+ years of experience in the activity. Pronouns: He/Him

If you would like to send me docs my email isjacobkemp23@gmail.com

Debate - PF/Policy

I AM LAY! A SIMPLE SPEECH COACH!! PLEASE BE NICE TO ME, I WILL CRY.

With that being said, passion and clarity in speaking is very important to me (speech coach, OBVIOUSLY). If you don't SAY it, in terms of evidence/cards, I'm not likely to pay attention to it.

I WILL FLOW THOUGH!! I PROMISE!! AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GO TOO FAST.

I am interested in hearing Kritikal arguments and Theory debate, so do not stray away from that just because you see I'm a lay judge (I'm not the lay-est tbh).

Please make sure you are being as specific as possible in your description of arguments.

Logic and realism is important to me. Make me logically believe your argument and impacts. If its TOOO much of a stretch it may affect my decision. But I'll probably buy more than you think.

cardstealing@gmail.com

Conflicts:

I am a teacher at The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Paradigm:

I have eliminated sections containing opinions on argument style/choice, because they should be irrelevant to the evaluation of individual debates. Debaters work hard and deserve judges who work hard too, regardless of the content of their arguments.

Do what you do best. I will attempt to solely base my decision on the technical execution of arguments. If I think you're being unclear or have no idea what you're saying, I'll make it obvious. Technical debating includes clarity, lining arguments up, and clear explanation. If an argument does not include a claim, warrant and implication, it is not a complete argument.

Two caveats:

1. I am a poor evaluator for arguments that endorse personal self-harm and of debaters who berate their opponents. These practices will result in lower points and I will stop the round if it becomes egregious.

2. If both sides agree that something other than technical debating should determine the outcome, it liberates me from any constraints requiring me to be objective and I'll decide however I want. If there is disagreement, I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the argument that one side winning that judges should ignore technical debating in favor of something else is self-defeating because it requires technical evaluation to determine in the first place.

Speaker points:

High points will be awarded to debaters who are:

ready to start on time, have the email chain setup and ready to go, proceed without lengthy delays, non prep time related breaks or prep stealing;

execute the simplest path to victory;

demonstrate they're flowing via clash with their opponents arguments.

Other:

Clear evidence of clipping, clear misrepresentation of evidence, physical abuse, and other forms of cheating will always result in a loss.

I encourage you to rigorously question any part of my decision where we might disagree or understand things differently. You can ask me questions during the RFD, later during the tournament, and/or via email.

About Me

Kyle (he/they). I competed in national circuit PF for Fairmont (also did a bit of extemp and policy on the state level); I also coached PF, extemp, and oratory there. I studied math education and didn't debate in college. I now teach math and coach speech at Quarry Lane.

Email me at kkishimoto@quarrylane.org if you have any questions or to add me to email chains.

This is a circuit PF paradigm, paradigms for speech events are still a work in progress.

General

In terms of understanding speed, I probably cap out at ~275 wpm (Millard North update: probably shouldn't go 100% speed online). Please slow down on tags and make it clear when you are switching between tags and cards. Slow down in the back half.

I flow on a spreadsheet using the Verbatim flow template and will never flow off a speech doc.

I've delayed adding this to my paradigm for long enough, but I've had so much time wasted by terrible evidence exchanges that I have to do something about it now. In varsity and TOC bid tournaments, your speaks will be capped at 27.5 if you do not send a speech doc on the email chain before every speech in which you read new evidence in a round. The doc must be sent as a Word document or PDF, with a strong preference for Word documents. Prep time stops when you hit send on the email. Please set up the chain before the round start time.

You can argue in round why I should change any the beliefs listed below unless you are advocating for exclusionary behavior or academic dishonesty.

The best way to win in front of me is to win one piece of offense, properly extend it in each speech, and convince me it's the most important thing through weighing. I strongly prefer you going very in depth on one argument than trying to win every argument and undercovering everything.

Every claim you make should be warranted, and the team who does better comparative warrant analysis will almost always win. Empirics/evidence without warrants mean almost nothing to me, and analytical responses carry far more weight in front of me than most.

I will probably read a good amount of evidence when making my decision to make sure your evidence actually says what you claim it does, but this is not an excuse to not do evidence comparison. If I need to read evidence because there is unresolved clash on an argument, everyone's speaker points will likely drop.

Tech > truth but you'll find true arguments are very easy to warrant. Read above.

Rebuttal

Neither side can read new independent offense in rebuttal (theory arguments where the violation occurred in the previous speech is an exception). Weighing, framing, and turns are fine, but reading a new contention as an "overview" is not cool.

If you are the second speaking team, you need to frontline everything you intend on going for in the back half of the round. If you want to go for a contention in your case, you better cleanly frontline at least one link and impact.

Summary/Final Focus

Go for one thing and go for it hard. I love early collapse strategies (as early as the rebuttal speeches). Go for one of the six links into your case, go for a turn, concede defense against your own case to kick out of a turn, make smart decisions and be creative.

Three minute summaries are one minute too long. There's no excuse to not cleanly extend everything you want to go for. This means frontlining, and properly extending warrants and impacts.

Do meta weighing - why is your impact that wins on magnitude more important than your opponents' impact that wins on probability? And saying "we read link defense, therefore we outweigh because their impact is nonexistent" is NOT WEIGHING. Assume both arguments are true and show why yours is better.

If it's not in summary, it better not be in final focus. This applies to both offense and defense. I have no tolerance for debaters who disrespect their partners, and one of the most common ways it appears in-round is when a second speaker's final focus is nothing like their partner's summary. Your speaker points will suffer greatly if this happens.

"Progressive" Arguments

Theory should be used to set norms and check against abuse. I'm not the person to read frivolous theory in front of. Aside from disclosure, I will not vote on anything that didn't happen in the round.

Here are some of my general beliefs on theory arguments, but keep in mind that I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote against these beliefs. You should disclose. I don't care either way about paraphrasing. If you paraphrase you should still have all your cut cards in one document and send it on the email chain. Default to competing interps. I generally believe if you read theory you should collapse on it, and have voted for a "you should not go for both substance and theory" shell before.

(copied from Katheryne Dwyer's paradigm) RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it.i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants.I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

I will vote for your K or soft-left type framing argument. If you're reading the former, keep in mind I'm not super familiar with the literature so warrant and explain well. K vs. FW debates are among my favorite to watch and evaluate. Both teams in a K round should warrant why I should prefer their model of debate. K's should either link to the topic or something your opponents said during the round - if your argument explicitly ignores the topic, I'm probably not your guy to read it in front of.

Speaker points

By far the biggest factor in speaks are the strategic decisions you make in round. You'll also get extra speaks for making your speeches easier for me to flow by signposting well, pausing when switching between flows, etc. You'll lose points for being rude to your opponents or stealing prep.

I probably have a narrower range of points I give than most judges. I would estimate my 25th-75th percentile range for points I give to national circuit-level teams to be about 28.5-29.

Respect your opponents and your partner. Have fun.

Hello there!

Some things to consider:

Cases:

Please share cases with each other before your first speech. A speech doc would be helpful if you are reading any cards during your rebuttal. I need to be able to access all evidence that you use.

Speed:

It is the debater's burden to make sure that the speech is clear and understandable. While I will not knock spreading/speaking quickly immediately, the faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak and signpost. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it into my flow. I vote off of my flow for all rounds.

Impact:

Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clearly stressed and extended. It's worth repeating and stressing if you feel you have the winning arguments. Don't just say "______ impact has more chances of happening than my opponent's impact of ____" I would like to see evidence on anything you do present on impact debate.

Clash:

Clash is necessary. You must convince me that your arguments outweigh your opponents. Dropped arguments leads to that argument being won by whichever side presented it. If your opponent dropped an argument, make sure to clearly state that during your speech in case I miss it on my flow.

Off-Case:

I am okay with Topicality/interp. If one does run T/interp the opposing side I would say the other side has to respond. If the T has been dropped, whoever ran the T is more likely to win the round.

I am familiar with the capitalism K, ethical imperatives K, and Feminism K. If you read any unfamiliar K's, please explain well.

Counterplans are okay with me. Make sure to explain how your counterplan would have more benefits than your opposing side.

Refutes:

Any cards you read against your opponent, be sure to ask if I or the opponent would like to see them before moving on. (or just use a speech doc like I mentioned earlier)

Other:

Be respectful to one another and make sure you are not making your opponent feel uncomfortable in any way.

Good luck and I'm excited to judge your debate!

I evaluate based on flow. Stay topical and be respectful, but also provide clash. Jokes are appreciated. 

Parent lay judge.

please:

• No spreading.
• No debate jargon.
• Be kind and respectful - don't yell over each other.
• Don't insult opponents.
• Time yourselves.

bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

vnj843@gmail.com

SPEECH Paradigms:

Main Interp Events (HI, DI, Duo):

I value a good, clear story arc (Set the scene, introduce the conflict, rising conflict, climax, resolution). Blocking is important (help me "see" the setting), as well as facial expressions to convey emotions and reactions to other characters. If the story confuses me, you will probably be ranked lower.

Dec/OI:

I like a meaningful speech. You can't control the content, but you choose it! Since this is Interp, I look for other interp skills (facial expressions, emotions, "blocking" (here, gestures) )

POI:

A consistent & clear theme, with all other interp skills (see above)

Original Events

(OO, OA): These speeches should have a very clear THESIS statement and roadmap. Your organization is important to me. Each point should support your thesis. And transition statements are important, too. (between your points). I like to see a "speaker's triangle", so I know when you are moving from one point to another. I also value vocal clarity, vocal variety, and good (natural) gestures. Conversational tone wins the day for me!

(Info): Same as above, but in addition, I like very creative boards/props.

(OPP): I've never seen this event, but will do my best.

Limited Prep Events

Extemp: I think Extemp speeches should have a thesis statement so I know right up front what your position on the topic is. I consider this a mini-platform speech, so like to have a roadmap and 2-3 points to support your thesis. I really look for an answer to the prompt; I very much dislike it when you skirt the topic question and start creating an answer that doesn't really address the question.

Impromptu: For me, these speeches need to be organized, and not just random talking. Having a thesis statement will really help you with that. Ideally, I like a mini-platform speech: thesis, roadmap, 3 points, conclusion. In this event, I really value creativity, too!

Introduction/Background

Hey! Shaur's partner speaking (or typing, I guess)! My name is Evan and my pronouns are he/him. I'm currently a speech coach for the Mountain View Los Altos Speech and Debate team. Before college I competed in parli debate for about 5 years, and before high school I did duo interpretation for 3 years(I highly recommend doing duo btw it was probably the most fun I had in speech and debate ever, sorry parli).

I mostly did lay and technical case debate, but I occasionally ran some theory (mostly in response to other theory or Ks).

Also, this paradigm is long, so feel free to just read the tl;dr and the underlined parts for the important information. The not-underlined stuff is mostly just there to clarify the jargon I used or clarify what I meant by something I underlined. So if everything I underlined makes sense, no need to read the stuff that isn't underlined!

And, if you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round!

PF Paradigm:

Probably treat me like a judge who’s half way between lay and flow. I’ll do my best to flow and I consider myself tech over truth, but I don't really know how PF works. Please have mercy.

Speech Paradigm:

I'm new to judging speech so this paradigm is definitely subject to change!

In general, my rankings and feedback will focus on the content of your speech (in events where you had to prepare the content of your speech yourself), and the delivery of your speech (in all events). I will do my best to let nothing else influence my decision. That being said, I think it's pretty much impossible to judge speech (or debate) objectively. I'll do my best to judge everyone on the same general standards, but with people presenting a variety of unique pieces, it's inevitably going to involve comparing apples to oranges in some regards. With that in mind, I will do my best to judge fairly, but I think it's only fair to admit that my decisions will be influenced by my subjective opinion. As with any opinion, I'd ask you to hear it out, but you shouldn't take my words as some objective truth. Instead, I hope you take my words as feedback. Some parts of my feedback may be helpful, other parts may not. Take what works for you!

I'm open to you performing speeches that break with conventions, as long as they abide by the rules of the event. I think it's really cool to see students stretch the boundaries of what's considered possible in a given event, so don't be afraid to try something new!

Most importantly, have fun!! Rankings are just numbers on a computer that you'll forget by the time you leave high school. Skills, friendships, and memories — those can last a lifetime. That's what makes speech worth doing (at least in my opinion).

Parli Paradigm:

TL;DR - Be nice and have fun!!! I prefer technical case debate, but I'll do my best to evaluate any arguments you present. I consider myself tech over truth. I'm most persuaded by strategic arguments, good weighing, and leveraging dropped arguments. Theory is cool. I will vote for frivolous theory if you win it, but I'll probably be sad. Ks are cool too, but I feel less confident about my ability to properly evaluate them, and you might have to slow down if you want me to catch everything. It's probably best to assume that I'm not familiar with your K lit, and I probably won't vote for an argument I don't understand :(

How I Reach My Decisions

I usually make my decisions by following these steps:

1. Order the layers in the debate round

Common layers in a round are case, K, and theory. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list. Everything starts on the same layer by default. If you want me to put anything (including Ks and theory) above anything else, you need to give me a good argument for why I should! The argument can be simple, but I have to be able to understand it, and you have to win it in the round. I won't fill it in for you.

If the term "case layer" isn't familiar to you, I just mean the part of the debate that has to do with the impacts of the plan after we imagine it passes. Often, the whole debate is in the case layer.

Next, I'll go through the following steps with the top layer (and then with go through them with the layers below if necessary).

2. Determine the weighing mechanism I'm using for the given layer

Win an argument telling me why I should use your weighing mechanism, and I'll use it! I default to net benefits on the case layer and K layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism (but usually the debaters give me a different weighing mechanism for the K layer). I default to competing interpretations on the theory layer if neither team gives me a weighing mechanism.

3. Order the impacts in the layer

This order depends on the debate. Tell me what this order should be by weighing your impacts in the round! See the "weighing" section for more info.

4. See who's winning the debate on the top impact (and then the impacts below it if necessary)

If there's a clear winner of the top/most important impact, they'll usually win the round, especially if a team wins arguments that the top impact outweighs everything else in the round. For example, if both teams have environmental impacts, and both teams agree that the environment is the most important issue in the round, I'll most likely vote for whichever side I feel is better for the environment (based on the arguments in the round).

5. If a winner isn't decided based on this layer, I move to the layer below it and repeat steps 2 through 4. I keep doing this until I find a winner!

My Thoughts on Decisions and RFDs

I think in almost every round there's a valid RFD (reason for decision) for either side. If that's true, I think it follows that any decision about who "won" is really just an opinion. So I think, ultimately, all RFDs, mine included, are really just opinions. As with any opinion, I'd ask you to hear it out, but you shouldn't take my words as some objective truth. Instead, I hope you take my words just as feedback. Some parts of my feedback may be helpful, other parts may not. Take what works for you! Also remember that I'm human and I make mistakes. If you felt you won that round, then walk out of that round feeling like a winner! I can't stop you! And if you felt you lost that round, walk out of that round ready to become an even better debater and kill it in your next round! Regardless, and most importantly, I hope you also walk out of that round feeling like you learned something and had some fun along the way!!

What do I think is a strategic argument

I think a strategic argument is composed of a clear claim, good evidence to support that claim, and a well-explained reason why your claim being true means I should vote for you.

How to win arguments (at least in my book)

In my opinion, the best ways to prove your argument beats your opponent's argument are:

• Leveraging dropped arguments! If your opponent doesn't respond to one of your arguments at all, I will consider that argument to be true. Given that, tell me how the dropped argument proves that your opponent's side is wrong in this debate. But remember, (at least in my opinion) an argument consists of a claim, at least one warrant, and an implication. Be warned: even if an argument is dropped, I probably won't vote on it if it doesn't have each of those 3 parts! If I don't understand the claim your argument is trying to make (or, in other words, if I don't understand your argument), I probably won't vote for it. If you didn't provide any logical or cited reason that your argument is true (you just made the claim and moved on), I probably won't vote for it. If you don't provide an implication that tells me why this claim matters, I probably won't vote for it because I won't know how it's relevant in this round.

• Weighing! Tell me why your warrants (logical or "cited") are better than your opponent's warrants and/or tell me why your argument matters more. For more explanation, see the "Weighing" section of this paradigm.

• Using "even if" scenarios! This means tell me why you're winning "even if" I believe that their argument (or at least some part of their argument) is true. Often your argument can't win if I believe everything they say is true, but do your best to pick as many parts of their argument as possible and explain why your winning even if I believe all those parts you picked!

Weighing

Weigh your impacts! If you give me valid arguments about how your impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts and they don't respond, you'll probably win!

Do metaweighing, if you're into that! In other words, tell me which weighing mechanism I should look at first! That means making arguments like magnitude should be considered over/before probability, probability should be considered over/before magnitude, or timeframe should be considered over/before magnitude and probability! It can make my job a lot easier (and I think whoever does the metaweighing will usually like the outcome).If you do metaweighing, make sure to tell me why you're winning under your metaweighing!

Weigh evidence/arguments! Tell me which evidence I should believe and why, especially if there are two competing pieces of evidence that are critical to the round. Pretty much any argument about how your evidence is better proof of your claim than theirs is will do me a big favor!

By default, I'll usually consider "cited" evidence (like statistics and historical facts) stronger than logical evidence (evidence that's just your logical reasoning about why something is true), but this isn't a steadfast opinion/order. I'm definitely open to changing this belief if you win an argument about it in the round. Also, since this is parli, you don't actually have to "cite" your source (since all citations are non-verifiable in parli land). If you don't cite a source, but present something like a statistic or a historical fact, I'll still treat it as "cited" evidence.

New Arguments in the Last Speeches (LOR and PMR)

I'll do my best to protect the flow (meaning I won't consider new arguments made in these speeches), but calling the POO (Point of Order) is still appreciated!

I count new metaweighing arguments as new arguments in the last two speeches, even if they're technically "just weighing". Otherwise, I think the PMR in particular could give a billion reasons why they're winning on whatever weighing mechanism they choose and then argue that I should consider that one weighing mechanism above all else, and hypothetically they would win every round.

Other than metaweighing, I think new impact weighing/comparison is generally fair game in the last two speeches since they're supposed to be summarizing and crystalizing the round. That being said, if a new weighing claim made in the PMR ends up being a pivotal argument in my decision, I'll usually lean toward siding with the negative and stretch more to cross-apply negative arguments that could respond to this weighing claim (since the negative doesn't have a chance to respond to the PMR weighing, but the aff has a chance to respond to the LOR weighing).

Theory

I'll default to evaluating theory using competing interpretations. If you can prove that their interpretation is bad I don't really see why you need to read a counter-interpretation though. If you don't read a counter-interpretation, I'll just assume you're defending the debate status quo (which is usually just their interpretation but replace "must" or "must not" with "may or may not"), kind of like I assume the neg is defending the status quo if they don't read a counterplan. Still, the team reading theory can give disadvantages to your implied counter-interpretation, so not defending it might be an uphill battle. So, in summary, I basically just think of competing interpretations as net benefits of the interpretation.

Remember when I said I'll be sad if I vote for friv theory. That's probably true in most cases where you don't know your opponents. But, if you do know your opponents and you know everyone in the round will have fun with it, then go for it! I'm not the fun police (I hope). But, if both teams aren't really comfortable with it, I'll be sad.

Kritiks

Ks weren't really my thing in high school, so I don't have too many thoughts on them. I'll probably be more receptive to common sense responses than the average tech judge, even if these common sense arguments don't have the technical jargon commonly used in effective K responses.

Please explain your arguments clearly! Both so your opponents can effectively engage in the round, and so I can do a better job evaluating your arguments. Assume I don't know your K lit because I probably don't!

If you can tell your opponents you'll be reading a K before the round, it would be great if you do. It would be even better if you disclose your advocacy or the thesis of the K you're reading. I think the discussion and insight you get out of the round are a lot more valuable if both teams are able to effectively prepare for the debate they're about to have, and I do think it's often unfair if one team gets 0 minutes to prep responses to a K the other team spent days writing.

That being said, I think disclosure theory debates can get messy since the violation debate is hard to resolve without just taking one team's word for it. If faced with disclosure theory I'll do my best to evaluate it based on the arguments made in the round, but in all honesty, I'll probably feel forced to intervene to reach a decision on the theory shell, so I'll do my best to find something else to decide the round.

I do think I'll probably be a little more receptive to TUSfg/Framework T than the average tech judge, (but if you run framework T you'll certainly still have to work for the win).

I consider the ROB (Roll Of the Ballot) the thesis of your framework section. In my view, the arguments you make in the framework section are the evidence supporting your ROB. If your opponents effectively respond to your framework, but they don't explicitly answer your ROB, I won't consider your ROB conceded (because I'd consider the evidence behind the ROB refuted).

Other random thoughts

Please don't respond to an argument by saying, "This claim doesn't have any evidence, so you shouldn't consider it" and then moving on! They may have no evidence that their claim is right, but if you move on I'm also left with no evidence that their claim is wrong! Your evidence doesn't need to be from an online source. In my opinion, especially in parli, logic is considered evidence. So, if you point out their claim doesn't have evidence and then ALSO give me some logical reason that their claim probably isn't true, you're golden!

Counterplans can be offense because opportunity costs are still costs.

In terms of speed, I can probably handle up to 150 words per minute. If you go too far above that I might miss some things, but I'll hopefully catch the main ideas for most of what you're saying. I'll slow or clear you if I really can't keep up, but even if I haven't said anything it's best to slow down if there's anything really important that you want to make sure is on my flow and you've been going fast.

Tag teaming is fine! I'll only flow what the designated/current speaker is saying though (so the current speaker will have to repeat whatever their partner said if they want me to consider it). My definition of tag teaming is when a person talks during their partner's speech, usually to give them an idea or tell them to respond to some argument.

I won't flow questions asked (or statements made) during POIs or during flex. I think POIs should not be used to make statements or arguments during your opponents' speech. They should be used for clarifying or strategic questions. In my opinion, strategic questions are questions that could strengthen an argument you want to make later based on their response. Strategic questions don't involve effectively stating the thesis of an argument you want to make. Telling them your argument during their speech only gives them more time to think of a good response, so (at least in my opinion) it's probably not the most strategic choice!

Also, I'm sorry if the formatting is messed up, I promise it looks better in the paradigm editor, but for some reason it looks like it doesn't convert well when other people view it :((

This is my third year of judging. I prefer to keep rounds traditional. I am looking for clear and concise arguments for debate. I appreciate when you keep your arguments logical and well-framed. Aim for clarity, not speed.

As for speech, I am looking for an engaging delivery and an organized, compelling selection of piece and topic.

I am both a speech and debate coach, who primarily works with speech events and IPDA style debate.

Speech Events:

In interp, I focus on technical ability but also your understanding of the emotions in the piece. I want to see sincere displays of emotional depth that appropriately connect with the overall theme.

In public address and platform speaking events, I value organization and clarity in your speech. I am a fan of visual paragraphing provided it is done well--your movement should look natural and enhance the presentation not distract. INFO should be well rehearsed with their visual integration, but I understand that accidents may happen due to travel/stands.

ALL Debate Events:

Above all, I value good sportspersonship! I will not tolerate rude behavior towards opponents because we are here to clash ideas, not clash each other. I am opposed to the practice of spreading, as it does not give judges enough time to process information and flow. I typically evaluate rounds based on the following criteria (in order): validity and logic of argument, organization of points, round decorum, and speaking presence.

Background: I primarily did PF, interp, and Congress in high school. Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate. Please also use strong warranting; reading card after card, or centering the debate on which evidence to prefer, rarely wins my vote over higher quality argumentation.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education). Your job is to argue with your opponents, not use jargon or speed to exclude them.

PF: As a former PFer, I appreciate a traditional approach. This is not circuit policy. Clash! Weigh your evidence against your opponents' evidence! Tell me why I should pref yours! Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Establish tangible impacts! Make sure your links are strong so you can access your impacts! Consider impacts beyond nuclear war (and if you're going to impact out to nukes, make sure your links are solid). Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I value unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp. Include a content warning before presenting about topics that may trigger or upset your competitors or judge(s). Not including content warnings for sensitive content will impact your ranking.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make this experience hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively talking during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

Avoid spreading, because if I miss something for the flow, that's on the competitor.

My flow is the final flow - please don't tell me how to flow.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

World Schools

I truly love world school as an event. It is my favorite event to coach and I've been coaching worlds since 2018. I focus heavily on the event’s rubric to guide the ballot; however it ultimately is a debate event so remember to focus on the warranting and implication of your arguments. I do think there is a lot of room for stylistic flair that can add to a worlds round that can carry down the bench throughout the round. I see a lot of value in POIs for both sides - for the asking side to break up the flow of the debate and for the receiving side to clearly contextualize an answer that helps guide them to their next point of clash.

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

I am a parent judge who is just learning about debate. I'm excited to get to hear some great debates! Please be sure to explain the topic to me and persuade me with the arguments, while also being good speakers. I do not appreciate spreading. Take time to connect your arguments back to your value/criteria very clearly!

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy

I have been judging speech events since 2021, including at Nationals in 2022, where I attended a class on judging. I work hard to be well versed on the criteria for all the speech events and judge them accordingly. Overall I consider the choice of piece/quality of cutting; emotional connection to the piece and audience; confidence and eye contact; organization; and pacing.

I have been judging speech events since 2021. I look for presenters with a clearly demonstrated personal connection to a presentation/performance, no matter what the topic is. I also look for clear points or messages delivered with impact, whether that impact is made through strong argument or delivery, effective use of structure/wording, or compelling emotion.

Fayetteville High School Debate Coach

I've been an active member of the speech and debate community for 10+ years as a competitor, judge, and coach.

I believe a good debater should also be a good speaker. I value the delivery of your arguments, and believe it is an important piece of persuasion. I look for organized, well thought out speeches. Please don't just read your speech to me. Sell it to me! The presentation of your argument is equally important. Speaker points exist for a reason! I look for line-by-line analysis of your opponent's arguments. Leave nothing untouched!

I also value quality evidence/cards to support your claims. A great argument is supported by facts and reasoning. Again, organization is important so roadmaps, sign posting, etc. are all essential. Please provide clear links, I shouldn't be left wondering how something connects to the resolution. Use your time to explain your links in depth.

Please don't spread in LD or PF! Personally, I prefer for spreading to be reserved for CX. I can keep up with fast speaking, just be careful with articulation.

Congressional-I always look for strong argumentation, in addition to your delivery. Please adapt your speeches to the arguments that have been presented thus far and offer rebuttals! We want to see clash! Listen to what the other representatives have said and respond to that.

Above all else- I value a civil, respectful debate. Decorum is very important to me, and I believe a good debater can always get their point across in a way that does not put down or insult their opponent. Overtly sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise offensive arguments will not be evaluated. Keep it professional at all times!

Please feel free to ask me any other questions before the round starts. As a judge, I always want to see you do well! I am here to help you and offer you feedback so you can grow as a debater.

Email for chain: britney.mcgloflin@fayar.net

Harvard 2025 - I am sick so please take it easy on my lol. I'll try my best to keep up but am not at top shape. Also I won't be shaking anyones hands.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

Circuot wise, I'm generally a bit rusty; judged a bit last year and before that was actively involved in 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7/10).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists across Congress/Speech and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but personally believe the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Offense-defense - arguments are evaluated probabilistically.

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of the topic and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I prefer adjudicating thoroughly researched arguments related to the topic.

I am an experienced speech and debate coach. I am usually on the tournament operations side of the house, but I have experience judging multiple speech and debate events. I have judged at the local, state, and national levels. Please be respectful of all competitors and all judges at all times. I have zero tolerance for inappropriate behavior during speech and debate rounds. Keep in mind that you are representing your school and your school's speech and debate program. Enjoy your rounds!

Debate Events

Always be sure to ask your judge and your opponent if we are ready before you begin a speech.

Remember that presenting a clear argument takes precedence over speed.

If you are in the middle of a sentence and time is up (either during a constructive or cross-examination), I will allow you to finish your sentence.

I look for a well-developed case that includes clear identification of the value, value criterion, contentions, points of clash, and voting issues. Although I am more traditional when it comes to debate, I am open to progressive debate. Your job is to convince your judge(s) that you have the stronger argument.

You may use your electronic device to time yourself, but keep in mind that your judge is the official timekeeper in the round. Please be sure that your device is in silent mode.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself if you are not speaking. You can unmute during your speeches and cross-examination periods.

Speech Events

I will be happy to provide you with time signals. Please let me know before you begin the specific time signals that you would like (i.e.., 5 down, fist at 10, etc.) Please be sure to know the rules of your event before you arrive in the round (i.e., maximum speaking time, use of props, etc.)

For virtual tournaments please keep yourself muted when you are not performing.

Please refrain from texting and playing on your phone during other students' performances. It is disrespectful to your fellow competitors who, like you, have worked very hard to prepare for tournaments.

World Schools Debate

World Schools Debate is not the same as policy or Lincoln-Douglas Debate, so please refrain from spreading during the round. Your speech should be delivered at a conversational pace. Be sure to make eye contact and deliver your speech instead of reading word for word from your paper. World Schools Debate focuses on both the quality of the arguments and the quality of speech delivery.

Please make sure that your POIs are limited to 15 seconds each. If you do not wish to entertain an opponent's POI at a given time, please do so respectfully. Use your discretion about when to address a POI, but please make sure that you are not rejecting EVERY POI attempt during your speech. There are no POIs during the first and last minute of each constructive speech. POIs are also not permitted during reply speeches.

You may use a cell phone (placed in airplane mode) to time yourselves during the round. The judge is the official timekeeper.

Hi! I'm excited to be your judge today. I am a trained speech and debate judge.

For debate - Please don't speak too quickly. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing and your arguments will not be evaluated as part of the round. Please add signposts to make arguments as clear to me as possible. Impacts are important to me - I want to understand the real world significance of the argument. Don't just tell me the argument, tell me why I should care.

For speech - I love speech events where you incorporate personal stories and humor. Have fun, because your energy will be contagious!

Hello! I’m a 1 Diamond Assistant Speech Coach with 8 years of speech coach experience and 25 years of active participation in the speech and debate community. I competed interpretation events as a high school student between 2000-2004. I have 22 years of speech judge experience on the local and national circuits.

In interpretation events, I appreciate strong character development, unique and distinct characterizations, and authentic and meaningful storytelling.

In public address events, I appreciate a clear and persuasive thesis/argument, extensive examples, a compelling analysis, cited research, and strong performance elements (e.g. use of humor, interesting topics, excellent speaking skills, and thoughtful gestures/movement).

I have no experience judging or competing in Congress. I have only judged 1 round of LD, and less than 10 rounds of PF.

I have judged speech events for 3 years across a variety of events. In addition to ensuring the speaker is meeting the general requirements of their event I am looking for the following:

Clear demonstration of a theme or message

Commitment to the piece

Applicable gestures, mannerisms, vocal modulation, characterizations that support and enhance the piece

Clear understanding of the piece and a communication of that understanding

I recognize the amount of work that you all put into your speeches and will do my utmost to support, guide and appreciate all that you do.

I am a coach and teacher at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I have been involved with debate on the local, regional, and national circuit as a competitor, judge, and coach for more years than I care to put in print.

Non-traditional Debate Warning: If you are looking for a judge that is into non-plan, non-topical K affs, poetry, or other interp affs, I am definitely not the bestjudge for you. I love a good POI, Oratory, and DI, but I love them in those event categories.

Speed: Once upon a time, I kept a fairly fast and thorough flow. I think that I still keep a good flow, but I'm probably not as fast as I once was. I suggest starting at a mid-rate and then pick up speed, which will allow me to get used to your cadence. Another issue concerning speed is that debaters, more often than not, think they are clearer than they actually are. Paperless debate has made this worse. I'll usually try give one "clearer" or "louder" warning per speaker, but after that, either you or your partner need to be paying attention to my facial expressions and whether I’m flowing. I have a terrible poker face, so it will be pretty obvious. If I don’t flow the argument or card text then that argument or card text it is not in the round and I am definitely not going to ask about it and I will not use the speech doc to fill it in for you. I am inclined to be more impressed with a debater who is clear, efficient, and persuasive who speaks slightly slower than a debater who feels the need to show me their mad spreading skills. In terms of speed and T, theory, and k’s: SLOW DOWN - slow way down (see notes on kritiks). Please read my comments at the end of this page concerning the ever growing negative aspects of paperless debate.

The Role of the Affirmative: I expect the affirmative to advocate the resolution through TOPICAL PLAN actionclearly stated in the AC. If you want to run a critical aff stating that the resolution is racist, ablest, ageist, or anything else that suggests an unwillingness to affirm the resolution at hand, as written, then I am not going to be a good judge for you. I am possibly willing to listen to a critical aff that advocates the resolution. (Please see my notes on kritiks later). Performance/Project teams may find it a challenge to meet my view of the affirmative's role.

Topicality: It’s a voter. I like a good T debate that involves actual evidence and a description of why the aff does not meet the interpretation. The standards debate should include a viable limits argument. Why is the affirmative's interpretation of limits bad for debate? If you are going for ground, make sure you impact why it's a big deal to you in the round, and/or even for debate as a whole. Negative teams who plan to go for topicality should be prepared to go “all in." At best, you could weigh “T” and one other position. You’re unlikely to get much ground or be terribly persuasive if T is one of 3 or 4 positions in the 2NR (And really, why have four plus positions remaining in the 2NR?). Impact analysis on T is just as important as it is on any other position. Don’t bother to kritik T with me in the room. T is not racist. Do not run RVI’s on T. It is worth noting that a T debate needs to be a bit slower due to its needed explanation, but it does not need to be handled as slowly as a kritik.

Counterplans: Preferably, counterplans are non-topical, which creates a clearer division of ground. Counterplans also need to be clearly competitive. A CP that is basically just steals the plan is probably not competitive and is just stealing ground, but the idea of PICs can be debated in round. Conditional CP’s are probably a bad thing, but the debate as to why must be specific. A clear net benefit is better for competiveness. If going for the CP in the 2NR, the negative does not automatically get the assumption of the Status Quo as the alternative in place of the CP as a voting issue. This choice must be explained in the 2NR. The aff should definitely argue whether the neg can operate in multiple worlds, or must treat the CP as their new advocacy. Note: I find most severance perms abusive. When I have voted on such a perm, it has usually been because the neg mishandled the flow and allowed the aff to get away with it. The neg needs to note that it is the affirmative’s job to advocate their plan, in its entirety, through the 2AR. It is one thing for the Aff to kick an advantage, but it's an entirely different thing to sever part or all of the plan. Affirmatives should not argue that the "neg does not get any fiat." That's ridiculously limiting.

Disadvantages: I’m old school policy, so I like disads. Disads should have a comparable risk to the net benefits of the AC and/or serve as a net benefit to the CP. There should be a significant link debate (offense/defense) and a clear impact calculus. I hate it when teams wait until the 2NR/2AR to finally weigh the impacts. Reading more cards is not weighing an impact; it’s just reading more cards. An impact calculus requires clear analysis. I will put as much effort into weighing the disad risk as a decision calculus as you spend trying to persuade me that the argument is worth the vote.

Kritiks: I still have not grown to love kritiks. This is definitely true in terms of non-topical K affs and neg kritiks that probably have little to do with the actual plan. Some teams have become overly reliant upon them (running the same position every single year) and use them to avoid having to debate the topic or debate policies they don’t like. I find that most kritiks have ambiguous implications at best and the alternative (if there is one) is often not an alternative at all. I have found myself voting for some of these arguments, despite my not even understanding the position, because the other team failed to explain clearly why the argument has little bearing in the round or fails to point out the shortcomings of the alt. You should also be aware that I most likely have not read much of the critical literature you are referencing and citing. Although I use philosophy in my English class, I do not use at a grad school level. If you plan to run any critical positions in my presence, you must do the following:

1) Slow Down. Really. Slow down. I mean conversational speed slow down

2) Explain your position clearly – no blippy tag lines or argument extensions

3) Have a specific link

4) Have a clear alternative – something more tangible than “being part of the ___ mindset," “avoiding the evils of capitalism,” or "do nothing." Huh??

Despite my personal disposition on the kritiks, the opposing team will still need to say more than “The K is bringing down policy and should go away.”

Performance/Project Debates: I’m still a cost-benefits analysis policy judge at heart. I have not changed my mind on the position that performance/project positions leave little ground for the opposing team. I have no idea how to weigh your performance against the other team’s position (performance or traditional) for the purposes of winning a debate.

Cross Ex: CX is important for fleshing out a strategy and provide clarification of arguments; I generally think that answers in cross ex are binding. I actually listen to cross ex, often take notes and even find it interesting. I also find it not that interesting on many occasions. Tag team CX is okay, but avoid taking it over. Not being able to handle your cross ex will result in lower speaker points. Taking over a partner’s CX will also result in lower speaks. CX starts when the speaker is finished. If you need 30 seconds to “set up” then that will come out of prep.

Role of the Ballot: My ballot determines who wins the round. That is all. If you win, you are (perhaps) one round closer to clearing. If you lose, you are (perhaps) one round closer to not clearing. My ballot does not send a message to the debate community; it is not a teaching tool; it is not an endorsement of a particular action or philosophy.

Theory: Save theory debates for when they really need needed and warranted. Too many debaters are running theory as their “go to” argument. Debating theory as a "default" argument every round cheapens the arguments and makes judges less likely to take them seriously. Do not run any theory arguments against Topicality (see above).

Miscellaneous:

Paperless Debate: Speaking style has simply become worse with paperless debate. Card reading has become choppy, debaters have problems toggling back and forth on the computer, debaters are taking liberties with prep while flashing or emailing speech docs, and instead of flowing the arguments as they are being presented, debaters are back-flowing from flashed material that may or may not have actually made it into the speech. Some judges have resorted to reading the email chain. These are all poor debate practices. Teams are saving paper and tons of money when flying, but debates have become sloppy. If I don't/can't flow the argument/card, then it isn't in the round.

Prep Time: Your prep ends when you have finished loading the flash drive and hand it off to the opposing team. If an email chain is set up, your prep ends when you hit “send.” This means that you are standing up to speak. If you start conversing with your partner, I will continue to run prep and I will probably dock your speaks for stealing prep.

Flowing: Do it. Follow the flow, not the “flashed” cards. Do not mess up my flow!!

Label Arguments: “First off, A-uniqueness” is not a label for my flow. Label each off case – every single one of them. When you move to the case debate, be clear as to where you are and when you are moving on to another advantage, etc. This is also true for the 1A; the AC needs to be crystal clear.

Reading Cards Post Round: I rarely do so. To get me to read a card requires a specific request during your speech and an explanation as to why and what I am looking for exactly. If I am part of the email chain, this does not mean I am automatically going to read cards. If I call for a card without you requesting it or go to the email chain without direction then something was so unclear that I felt I had no choice. This presents an opportunity to intervene, which I do not like doing if I can avoid it.

Card Clipping: It’s cheating. Don’t do it. If an accusation is brought up in the round, I will take it seriously (even stop the round if necessary). If you bring it up as an accusation, you need to be darn certain you are correct. Be clear where you stop reading a card if you do not finish. "Stop card" is probably not clear enough.

As we say in New Orleans, “Be Nice or Leave”. It is fine to be competitive, but have fun. You are competitors in the round, but you should be friends outside of the round. Being a jerk in the round will not lead to friendships and it will definitely hurt your speaker points.

As a learning professional with a master’s degree in learning psychology, I value the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and the research that supports these ideals. When judging speech and debate, I look for the following key elements:

Research and evidence: I highly value speeches backed by credible research. Facts, statistics, and evidence should support your arguments and demonstrate a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Depth of research shows your commitment to seeking truth and ensures you’re contributing meaningfully to the debate.

Clarity and structure: Organized, well-structured speeches are essential. Clearly state your position, support it with evidence, and conclude with a clear impact. Logical flow is key to helping both me and your peers follow along and understand your points.

Critical thinking and knowledge:I appreciate debaters who engage in a meaningful pursuit of knowledge. Demonstrating awareness of counterarguments, questioning assumptions, and exploring different perspectives will strengthen your position. Those who can respectfully challenge opposing views while supporting their stance with strong reasoning will stand out.

Passion and delivery:Your delivery should reflect genuine passion for the topic. Speaking with energy, conviction, and a clear voice enhances your persuasiveness. However, passion should not overshadow respect for decorum. Strike a balance between enthusiasm and professionalism.

Collaboration and engagement:For events that require collaboration and cross examination,I’m looking for those who engage with their peers by asking thoughtful questions, building on the debate, and actively contributing to the collective pursuit of truth. Debaters who enhance the discussion and add value to the session will be rewarded.

Humor:As someone who studies the use of humor in motivation, I appreciate speakers who use humor effectively and appropriately. While not essential, well-placed humor can lighten the atmosphere and enhance engagement—so long as it remains respectful and supports the argument.

In sum, I prioritize well-researched, clear, and respectful contributions to the competition. Show me that you are committed to seeking knowledge and truth, and that you can communicate that effectively with passion and professionalism.

I am a new debate coach at Summit HS! Therefore, I am a lay judge, but I do know how to flow your cases. I am a biology teacher, so I love science! Any science jokes are greatly appreciated! I can also take debate joke suggestions! My one joke is getting old ):

No points if you are a bully.

Preferences: No spreading! If I don't hear it and it's not on my flow, then you didn't say it. The purpose of debate is not trying to get as many words in as possible but it is to convince me of your argument, whether if it is a lay judge or not. I am not a tech judge but I try my best to make sense of your case. I always ask myself the WHY and HOW on my flow. I should be able to answer this based on the information you provided to me. I do not usually flow crossfires however I do listen to pick up any information I may have missed during case/rebuttal/summary. During the RFD I try my best to provide you with an exact reason why I voted for or against your ballot based on my WHY and HOW, but I don't have enough experience with case writing/debate to really go into specific links within the argument. I would not mind judging a theory/K round I am open to trying it, as long as you are thorough in you explanations. I would love the experience!

Most importantly... you do this for fun! Don't stress about winning/losing/bids you are still going to do great post debate regardless.You are learning a new skill from this.

My name is Jordan Press. I debated for 4 years at Cypress Bay High School, graduating in 2016. I was very active as a debater/judge/coach from 2012-2019. I now work at NSU University School as an educator and assistant coach.

jordan.press1998@gmail.com for email chains – also feel free to email questions.

POST EMORY 2025:I am sorry, but I no longer want to sit through any more bad K/frivolous theory/SPARK debates etc. Reading arguments to avoid doing real research and clash is antithetical to the purpose of Public Forum Debate. I can evaluate them, but I very much dislike the direction that PF is going. Read theory to check back real abuse. Other than that PLEASE read substance - my brain cannot tolerate going entire tournaments without hearing a substance round any longer.

The purpose of an email chain is to speed up evidence exchange, not to have the judge read off your doc during your speeches while you go incomprehensibly fast. I can flow most speeds but when PFers go fast they usually aren't clear, andif you aren't clear I can't flow. I don't want to flow off your doc. Prioritize being efficient over being quick. Also if you're going really fast I'm probably not flowing author names, so keep that in mind for extensions. The only time I look at evidence is if 1) there's an unresolved evidence dispute, 2) I feel like I'm forced to do so in order to make my decision (which means the debate was super messy/unclear), or 3) I'm curious

Back half strategy: I strongly prefer rounds where you make it clear to me what voting for you does. What does the Aff/Neg world look like and why is your world better? I want a clear, concise, cohesive, and crystalized narrative. Additionally, extensions require context and warranting that evolves around the events occurring in the round. The best rounds are the ones where debaters shape their extensions and warrants around the clash happening in the round instead of reading off a pre-written extension file. If you just tell me to “extend Smith” with no context, I probably won’t extend it on my flow. If you are going to read blippy card extensions in Summary/FF I am not the judge for you. Moreover, Depth > Breadth. I am much more likely to vote for a team extending 1 cleanly explained, weighed and fleshed out argument than a team extending 3-4 arguments that they are winning but are not explained in-depth in the back half of the round.

You should weigh early and often – it helps develop your narrative and helps me know what issues to look to first when filling out my ballot.

On Speaker Points – teams who do this stuff ^^ well will get higher speaks.

Defense isn't sticky. 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

I default to evaluating if I think the Aff or Neg world is better if I am not given judge instructions in the back-half.

My threshold for accepting responses to unwarranted arguments is really low.

I am generally tech over truth (this is a false dichotomy but w/e), but there is a threshold for offensive arguments. I will vote off ridiculous (in real world context) arguments if they are properly warranted, and easily not vote off things that are universal truths if they are not properly warranted. Warranting is key, which means it's generally much easier to have good explanations for real, truthful arguments anyways.

Progressive Arguments: By this point I'd say I'm decently comfortable evaluating theory and topical Ks. If your K is unusual or more dense (high theory/phil etc), you will need to overexplain and go slower, especially in the back half. I'm fine if you want to read a non-topical K but you'll need to overexplain even more. Ks and Theory weren't a thing when i was in HS so my beliefs are shifting as I learn and I have no preconceived notions on the args. I have literally 0 opinions on RVIs, IVIs, Ks, ROB, and Theory. You can shape my beliefs with the arguments you make in round, but I also would not expect a perfect evaluation of them.

On Disclosure specifically, I am pretty tab. I think there are both good and bad reasons for disclosure. However, if you email/upload to the wiki a giant block of text with no tags, highlighting or minimized text, my default interpretation is that you are not properly disclosed. At that point you are just being coy; either disclose or don't.

Tricks are a nonstarter.

TLDR;read what you want - if I don't understand it within the round, I won't vote on it.

In novice/middle school/JV rounds, I presume for the side I have to do the least work to find a voter for.

In Varsity/Nat Circuit rounds I presume Neg.

I don't care where you sit; if you stand while speaking, where you do crossfire, what you wear, etc. Do whatever makes you comfortable as long as I can hear you/your opponents.

Feel free to post-round me or ask questions – I want to help you learn and grow- just don’t be rude or belittling towards me and especially not towards your opponents. I am an adult; I can just leave if the conversation becomes unproductive. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but even more importantly it is an educational one. Be good humans, don’t let your drive to win rounds cloud your judgement.

Most importantly have fun and good luck! If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins or email me.

Assistant speech coach for five years, head coach for three.

Speech paradigms are tough because you can't change your piece on the fly but..

Rhetoric: I want to see your personality! I look for a balance of feeling like we're having a conversation while still being clean physically.

Interp: I'm going to look for the little things - clean transitions, clean blocking, clear characters.

Extemp: I'll flow your speech, so I'll look mostly at analysis. However, I look for a clean and easy to follow presentation as well. I also love to see your personality come through here.

Overall, I want to see you enjoying your performance!

PF:

Speed preference: Moderate

Voting: I like a balance of evidence and logic. If you don't explain why your evidence is important, it won't hold much weight with me.

Cross: Keep it polite

Currently on KCKCC team.

Assistant Coach at Lansing High School ‘25 (primarily coach LD/PFD/Congress)

High school - 4 years policy and 2 years of pfd in central Kansas 2014-2018

LD -

I think a value and criterion is important, please include them.

Policy Paradigm -

TLDR: please put me on the email chain, give good clash and good impact calc. (and see bottom bolded section)

I’m pretty open to listening to most arguments. Run your cool arguments in round, just explain them to me.

I will be flowing. I would prefer moderate speed (nothing super super fast please), give me pen time. Please extend your arguments. If you have an email chain I would love to be on it to follow along. allysonregehr@gmail.com

Explain your arguments and why they are important. Good debate stems from you being able to hold your ground and explain/examine. (Also please tell me what any acronyms used stand for)

Most of all debate is meant to be educational. If I feel like you are taking away from the educational factor of debate I will vote you down. There is no place to be rude, belittle, or demeaning in any way to your opponents, your judges, your teammates, etc in this round today.

My name is Angela Rinehart. I teach AP Psychology at Apopka High School and became the assistant debate coach in November 2022.

As a Congress judge, I am very aware of the importance of the P.O. in the chamber. I look for mutual respect of everyone in the room, confidence both while speaking and how you carry yourself, eye contact, speaking clearly with an even tone and pace of speech, original and valid argument points, and asking good follow up questions. My pet peeves are showing lack of respect because you can disagree as much as you want with others but it shouldn't be personal. I don't like to feel like you are yelling at us either. Please watch talking too fast and spreading.

I make notes as each person speaks and I do try to give both positive and negative feedback to everyone.

Lake Travis lay judge

Hi :)

Hello, I'm Lucas, a former debater with experience in world schools and congress formats. As a judge, my focus is on several key aspects:

1. Case Interaction: I highly value debates where teams actively engage with each other's arguments.

2. Organization and Clarity: A well-structured argument is crucial. I appreciate arguments that are logically organized and clearly presented. This helps me follow your line of reasoning and understand the crux of your arguments.

3. Quality over Quantity: Please prioritize the quality of your arguments over the quantity. I favor depth over breadth. Overloading with too many points can be counterproductive, as it can lead to superficial treatment of important issues.

4. Speaking Style: While I do value clear and confident delivery, the substance of your argument is far more important to me.

5. Spreading: I prefer that debaters do not rely heavily on spreading during the round. I cannot guarantee that I won't miss information.

6. Evidence and Examples: While empirical evidence and examples can strengthen an argument, I also value logical reasoning and theoretical frameworks. Make sure your evidence supports your claims effectively, and explain its relevance to your overall argument.

7. Respect and Decorum: Maintain a respectful attitude towards your opponents and the debate process. Civility is key in any debate, and I expect all participants to adhere to this principle.

New coach here. I'm familiar with speech and forensics, but new to debate.

Please don't spread. I'm not savvy enough to figure out what you are saying and flow your case.

Please be respectful to your competitors.

I value truth over tech and focus on the impacts for my decisions.

I'm looking forward to your debate, best of luck.

Oh Hey! I didn't see you there. Your hair looks AMAZING!

My name is Ray smith and I'm an alumni of Knott County Central High School (Class of 2005) located in Hindman, KY. At the very bottom I've included categories I've competed in during my time at Knott Central. Since then, I've had the opportunity to help judge competitions (in the early 2000's with paper ballots ????) and assist as a freelance coach. Additional professional experience includes working as an actor and educator with The Kentucky Shakespeare Festival as well as acting with Savage Rose Classical Theatre and Louisville Repertory Company. I'm currently signed with Heyman Talent Agency located in Louisville, KY where I primarily focus on film, television, and commercial projects. One of my favorite gigs was a lead role on a Spotify shoot.

When it comes to judging, I keep my poker face strong. It's a preference to help ensure no favoritism is being shown so don't be discouraged. When it comes to interpretation events, I look for solid character development and how polish the piece is. For example, in Humorous Interpretation, I really look at how well you pop into characters, focal points, as well as looking to see if characters blend into one another.

One piece of advice I would give We all started somewhere so don't give up. My freshman year in high school, I wasn't following the scripts and I believe I broke into finals once at a local competition. By my senior year, I quadrupled in state finals and even won a category. And my direct experiences in speech and debate have led me to a successful career as an engineer and actor.

Here are categories I've competed in along with some of my titles:

After Dinner Speaking (Humorous Oratory at the Great Smoky Mountain National Invitational) | 2005 Semi-Finalist
Broadcasting
Dramatic Interpretation
Duo Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist
Group Interpretation (Non-Sweepstakes points at KESDA State)
Humorous Interpretation | 2005 KHSSL State Champion
Impromptu Speaking
Improv Duo
Poetry
Storytelling | 2005 KHSSL State Finalist (Top 3)

Rick Spoonemore

Background: I was the 1985 Washington State Debate Champion in Policy (LD had just started way back then), 1st in State in Impromptu Speaking, and 2nd in State in Extemporaneous Speaking. I went to college on a debate scholarship, then to law school at the University of Washington School of Law where I was inducted into the Moot Court Honor Board, and won the Falknor Appellate Competition during my third year. I have been a Seattle litigator since 1992, and have been named a Washington State Super Lawyer every year since 2005, including six years as a "Top 100" lawyer in the state. I am currently the managing partner of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, a Seattle-based litigation firm. I have taught speech and debate, moot court, and trial advocacy to high school students, law students, and young lawyers. My professional profile is here: www.sylaw.com/

How to Lose a Debate Round: I have a great deal of respect for speech and debate and have little tolerance for those who disrespect the process or their competitors. If you are rude, you'll likely lose. If you are sexist, racist, or anti-LGBTQ+, you'll likely lose. If you are unprepared, then you are not respecting the process and that will hurt you. If you attempt to bend or break the rules, that also shows a lack of respect for the process. Don't bring up brand new arguments in rebuttal -- a twist or spin on an existing area of contention is good, but wholly tangential new arguments will hurt you. Speed is fine -- see below -- but if you attempt to spread, make sure you can do it with sufficient enunciation to make it intelligible.

How to Win a Debate Round: Clash, clash, clash! A good debate round is not two ships passing in the night with pre-canned arguments that fail to clash with the points advanced by the opponent. Sure, openings are set, but once the case moves to rebuttal I expect to see real engagement. I will give a win to a speaker or team who advances the most logical, reasoned, and supported arguments over a speaker or team who is smooth, but lacks depth, every time. I will flow all your arguments, make sure you engage all the positions advanced by your opponent. Dropped arguments can kill in policy, and will hurt in LD. I can handle speed, but make sure you can too if you decide to spread. If I can't understand you, I can't flow it. It took me years to unlearn speed after I got into the real world, so I don't penalize lack of speed, especially in LD. I generally buy problem area arguments and positions in both policy and LD. I like humor, where appropriate. Core principles, standards, burdens of proof/persuasion are key: I'll pay a lot of attention to the fight over the playing field in LD, so make sure you don't just engage on the details but neglect the superstructure.

Individual Events:

Impromptu: I admire any student with the guts to do impromptu. I am open to any form of speech in this genre -- from a story to a serious discussion about a current event. Give me a structure or roadmap, and attempt to tie in your conclusion to the introduction in some form. Pauses, stumbles, gaps and the like will not surprise me in this event, so chill if that happens to you. Just, please, don't go fast -- I know many people who do impromptu are also debaters, but this is the time to slow down and make a speech that has resonance with normal, non-debate people. Speed kills in this event. Finally, I really hate pre-canned impromptu speeches where the speaker takes one of the prompts and attempts to shoehorn it into a canned speech. That's not impromptu in my view, even if many students make it to nationals with this approach. If you do it, then make sure I don't know that you are doing it because I think it undermines the purpose of this event.

Extempt: See Impromptu. You have time to create a roadmap and structure (and hopefully a message or theme) so I view those elements as important. Like impromptu, this is a time to slow down from your debate tempo. I am not looking for volume of information -- don't spread extemp -- but a well-constructed outline with a theme or message that is, hopefully, thought-provoking.

Informative/Oratory: I have definite thoughts about good speeches in each of these events, but understand that by the time you are reading this there is nothing you can do. I'll make constructive comments on the ballots. In general, I think both of these events have become too formalistic and patterned. If you have a unique approach, you will likely be rewarded. The same tired formula (espicially in OO) has existed far too long, in my view. If you have a formula speech because that is what you have been coached to do (because the coach was coached the same, etc., etc.), just do it well.

Interp Events: Interp is far outside of my wheelhouse, and if the tournament decides to have me judge one of these events then treat me just like a "parent judge." I'll do my best . . . .

Spending all of 2024 tapping a sign that says, "The biggest liar loses is a perfectly justifiable way of judging any debate and probably what the Founding Fathers would have wanted!"

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

A debate is a search for the truth. That's why, along with voting, debating is at the heart of America's democratic process.

So please call out people who just make things up.

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

Also important:

* Intros that are directly about the topic always beat generic intros that could apply to any topic.

* Quotations always beat paraphrase.

* Fully-cited evidence I can hunt down always beats "The New York Times tells us that . . ." (Remember: NSDA-minimum is name or publication and year. That's an absurdly low standard that makes zero sense for the new-resolution-every-hour world of Congress. Many Congress debaters still fail to meet it.) The challenge posed by AI will make attention to sources even more important.

* An authorship without an expert solvency advocate--a credentialed source who advocates what's in Section 1 of the bill or the Resolved clause--is cursed. An authorship which has an expert solvency advocate is blessed. I hold cursed bills against their authors/sponsors and reward blessed authors/sponsors. It's considered rude to point out that the only people in the whole world who think the bill is a good idea happen to be the handful of AFF speakers, but that argument is an automatic winner for NEG. A great nation doesn't make policy based on a random hunch. If you can't quote an expert who says "We should spend X billion on Y program" (for instance) then your bill is cursed. I won't, of course, hold cursed first-AFFs against speakers, because someone has to kick off. TL;DR: Find your Section 1 in your research. Don't just wing it.

* Giving the right kind of speech (constructive, rebuttal, summative/"crystallization") at the right time always beats giving the kind of speech you're best at without thinking about what the debate needs. I think I can tell an "oops, thought I'd PO" crystal from one that groups and clinches the best arguments in the round.

* Rehash is a venial, not a mortal, sin. And if you're a novice, always give the speech. That said, giving a third- or fourth-in-a-row is an admission of under-preparation.

* Flipping is bad, actually. No real-world elected official would do it. And flipped evidence seems usually paraphrased to within an inch of its life. Instead of flipping, speak on the next bill.

* The assumption that everyone is going to give two speeches in a round seems fair, but it has pernicious effects. It discourages folks from speaking early. That in turn results in several "please, someone give a speech" moments in the round. It also discourages people from prepping the full agenda. I have mixed feelings about people ruthlessly taking speeches whenever they can. It's not friendly, but neither is stonewalling until some novice buckles and agrees to kick off the debate, and it's hard to blame someone who grabs a speech opportunity that's just sitting there.

* POs start at 1 on my ballot and lose ranks from errors. They can also be displaced by truly excellent speakers. The PO starts at 1 because the PO is the only indispensable contestant in the round. Can't have a round without the PO. The more people there are who run for PO, the faster the winning PO loses ranks from errors, because you're claiming you're better than everyone else who wanted it.

* Congress is speech *and* debate, so be sure you're listening and responding (debate) and keeping me focused on what you're saying (speech). Congress is getting too fast and burdened with jargon. The ideal Congress speaker is perfectly intelligible to someone who wandered in off the street. A conversational pace is a supreme sign of confidence, and if your arguments are also the ones the round needs, you get the one.

* Respect the role-play, which is the only thing that has kept Congress from joining the long list of last decade's big new debate event that will solve everything but which is now moribund because the college kids got hold of it.

* My feedback more often plays the doubting game than the believing game. For instance, I often suggest arguments I think would be better. I do this to help debaters, which helps Congress, which is something I love. Anyone who spends a perfectly good weekend trying to honestly hash out trade policy etc. is a hero, and I encourage everyone to be their best, which is why my feedback is more full of "grows" than "glows." But you're glowing just by playing.

I judge using the SRROD framework.

1. Structure - whether the speaker opened well, supported the topic with good examples and closed it out well
2. Relevance of the topic - is it relevant to the times we live in?
3. On how Relatable the topic is - i.e. can I relate to the topic?
4. Originality - how unique is this topic compared to the rest?
5. Delivery - use of effective oral presentation skills (volume, diction, speed of delivery, vocal variety), movement, use of props etc.

I put my analysis in a spreadsheet to show how I came up with an objective score.

I usually add separate feedback for each participant 1:1.

About

• Co-Director @ Coppell
• Outreach Director @ Mean Green Comet Debate Institute
• Debated NDT/CEDA at North Texas @ the turn of the century
• Email chain preferred: sykes.tx @ gmail.com & coppelldebatedocs @ gmail.com

Basics (See Bottom of Doc for PF & Congress)

• This document offers insight to the process I use to make decisions unless directed to do otherwise.
• Clarity is important to me. I prefer not to look at the speech doc until after the debate. I'm also working to adjust speaker points to keep up with inflation.
• I won't claim to be perfect in this area, but I believe debate has strong potential to build community. Please play nicely with others.
• I view all debate as comparison of competing frameworks. I considered myself a flex debater, and I’m willing to evaluate all arguments. I will attempt to minimize intervention in the evaluation of a) the selection of framework and b) the fulfillment of the framework's demands.

Policymaking

• The older I get, the more I see shades of grey with respect to uniqueness. Risk, for me, isn't as unidirectional as it used to be. I generally tend to determine that uniqueness debates are "close" and find I prefer warranted explanations of link vs. link turn in this relationship.
• If forced by lack of comparison to default on framework, I will consider time frame, probability, and magnitude of your impacts as part of cost benefit analysis of endorsing the affirmative plan.

Theory/Topicality

• I believe the topic can provide debatable ground, and I don't think that should necessarily be exclusive of other positions. The resolution is a starting point.
• On questions of framework, T-USFG, etc., I strongly recommend grounding arguments in academic literature whenever possible. I am particularly interested in how debate shapes agents of change.
• Consistent with my view of competing frameworks, there is no difference in my mind between "competing interpretations" and "abuse." Abuse is a standard for evaluating competing interpretations.

Counterplans/Counter-advocacy

• I don't believe I have strong predispositions related to counterplan types or theory.

Kritiking

• The division in the community between "kritik people" and "policy people" frustrates me. We should constantly seek more effective arguments. Questions of an academic nature vary from method to application.
• A working definition of "fiat" is "the ability to imagine, for the purposes of debate, the closest possible world to that of the advocacy."

Rebuttals/How to win

• You should either win in your framework and show how it's preferable, or simply win in theirs. This applies to theory debates and impact comparison as much as anything else.
• I find that many debates I judge are heavily influenced by the quality, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of warranted explanation and comparison.

Lincoln Douglas, specifically

• While my background in policy debate leads me to a more "progressive" or policy-oriented perspective toward LD, I have evaluated many traditional LD debates as well. You do you.
• I am open to theoretical standards in LD that are different than those in CX, but understand that my experience here affects my perception of some issues. For example, I may have a predisposition against RVIs because there are vastly different standards for these arguments across events. I'll do my best to adapt with an open mind.

Public Forum, specifically

• PF should transition to reasonable & common expectations for disclosure, evidence use, and speech doc exchange.
• Email chains and/or speech docs should be used to share evidence before speeches.
• Evidence should be presented in the form of direct quotes and accompanied by a complete citation. If you must paraphrase, direct quotations (fully cited with formatting that reflects paraphrased portions) should be included in the speech doc. If I feel you've abused this expectation (e.g., pasting and underlining an entire article/book/study), I won't be pleased.
• Time spent re-cutting evidence, tracking down URLs, or otherwise conforming to these conventions should be considered prep time.
• Regardless of the way the resolution is written, I think teams should make arguments based on how the status quo affects probability. Uniqueness and inevitability claims, therefore, would greatly benefit the analysis of risk in most of the PF rounds I evaluate.

Congress, specifically

• Remain active in the chamber. Move things along. Stay engaged.
• All speech & debate should be rigorous. I'm interested in quality of research and depth of content.
• PO - Mistakes with respect to precedence or procedure can be devastating. It's hard for me to imagine winning a big tournament without ever giving a speech.

Dude! Have some confidence, try your best and don't disappoint me.

“SUCKIN’ AT SOMETHING IS THE FIRST STEP TO BEING SORTA GOOD AT SOMETHING.” -JAKE THE DOG

Hey, my name is Justin Thomashefsky and I'm a coach at Truman High School. I competed in LD/PF from 2008 - 2010 and Policy during the 2010-2011 season. I've been judging / coaching debate since 2012 and have circuit Policy/LD experience

General debate things

I'm good with speed.

I'm good with K's (see policy for more info)

Disclosure theory is pretty meh to me. But if you make good arguments on it I guess ill vote for it.

Please analyze warrants in your evidence! This should go without saying.

Policy

I'm much more comfortable judging a policy round but I have a decent amount of experience judging critical rounds.

T - I default to reasonability but you can definetly convince me to evaluate competing interps if you win it on the flow. You need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. This goes extra for theory

K - I'm familiar and comfortable with standard K's (security, capitalism etc.) but you may lose me with high theory literature.

Please frame my ballot in your last speech. It should be clear what I'm voting for at the end of the round.

Open cross is fine but let your partner speak!

LD

For lay rounds: Debate warrants! Don't waste time on the Value/VC (Meta-ethic/standard) debate if you're both functionally the same framework. All the framework debate should come down to is what lens I should evaluate the round through

For circuit rounds: I'm not huge on the squirrel theory stuff that's been going on in circuit LD. I'll try to evaluate whatever you put in front of me but just like with T you really need to win in round abuse to get my ballot. For the rest just read policy stuff

I prefer to see lay rounds in LD. So if you're at a tournament with me that has a weird mix of lay and circuit you might want to default to lay. BUT I'll weigh whatever arguments you put in front of me in any style.

I am a junior high speech and debate coach. While I do tolerate some speed please do not spread. Please make sure to signpost. Impacts are important please make sure you connect them back to your value/criterion. Have fun and be kind to each other.

I have a background in acting and usually coach/judge interp & public speaking. I am looking for those hallmarks that make a story complete. In extemp, even as a person who has no knowledge base of the topic should at the end of your speech have a firm grasp of its background and you argument in the matter. Informative speeches should be clear and should include creative visuals, interesting takeaways, and a concise train of thought. Oration should be a place to share experiences either personal or researched. The personal experience should be authentic and tied to the topic. Oratory should be a place to advocate for the things you believe to be important. Hi, Di, Duo, Duet, Poi, etc, should have a story that through the acting/blocking is easy to follow and enjoy. Contestants should always be courteous in the round and respectful of competitors and judges. Final interp ranks are factored between story, technical blocking, acting, and overall effect.

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides both a platform and an audience for you to realize that your voice matters. I am honored to be but a small part of the process where you speak your truth to help change the world.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class three years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. Which means I do not want to read your case in a shared drop file- it is your job to make me understand your case verbally. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a flow judge with a dash of Policymaker thrown in, which is why nuclear war should rarely be run. But feel free to not put me in a box, and I'll try to not put you in one either.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresh each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

Hello Great Debaters!

Convince me the entire time, and command the room.

Please send your literature here: anje.watkins@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. I would like to see debaters debate in a civil and professional manner demonstrating sound logical reasoning while building a strong case. Please pay attention to your warrants, link chains, and questions you may ask during crossfires. Please speak clearly and do not spread or speak too fast, so I can fully understand you. Please do not use too many technical jargon but treat me as someone who had minimal knowledge on the topic, so please explain your logic and convince me fully why I should vote for you. I am looking forward to seeing you in rounds. I wish you all the best!