Please speak clearly, and try not to spread.

Please be respectful to your fellow competitors, especially during direct questioning.

General

I did Speech & Debate on the Arizona circuit in high school, which was about 3 years ago now! I competed in Congress nationally, and also competed frequently in PF, Extemp, and Oratory at local tournaments. Currently, I'm a third year studying Neuroscience at UChicago. I'll be taking notes/flowing/doing my best to give you the best feedback possible! Given the online format, please know that I won't be holding any technological issues against you, provided that they aren't extremely disruptive to your participation in the event. Another thing to remember about online debate is that it's much harder to hide your facial expressions from either me or your fellow competitors, so please make sure to be respectful, professional, and supportive of your fellow competitors.

Congress

For Congress, I value speech content and organization the most (especially since the online format makes it more difficult to place a lot of value on pure presentation). Signposting is a great way to give an organized speech! After the very first speech on a bill, every speech should have some level of refutation and clash. This is Congressional Debate, so I expect the chamber to have an actual discussion about the bills and this should be reflected in your speeches, especially if they're later on the debate. With this in mind, be sure to bring up new points in your speeches, or at the very least expound upon the points former speakers have made with new evidence. Asking questions is also a great way to show engagement in the round - but for direct cross make sure you stay respectful.

Public Forum

I will be flowing the entire round except for cross-fires, though I will be paying attention. If you want something from cross-fire to weigh in the round, bring it up in a speech and I'll flow it. I really value organization and the clarity of your warrants and impacts; please, please, please signpost! I expect constructives to be clear and well-researched, focusing only on your own arguments. The rebuttals should be organized, and go line-by-line down your opponents' case and refute it. All of this refutation has to be extended through summary and final focus. Don't bring up new arguments in final focus because I won't be weighing them. Final Focus is the time to weigh impacts and give me some kind of analysis about what really happens in the aff world vs the neg world. In general, you can assume I don't know much about the topic, and I'll be a blank slate regardless - don't make me weigh arguments for you! For citing sources, make sure you actually give some explanation of the card if you're extending it and don't just say "extend the Schwartz card" or something. Finally, please be respectful, especially in cross-fire. I want the round to be fun for everyone, and the best way to make sure that happens is to come prepared to debate but do so with kindness and respect for your opponents.

Excited to meet you all soon!

- Shayna

Hey guys, I am Mathew and I am more than likely jazzed about being your judge for the round.

I am a coach for Mountain View High School in Mesa Arizona with my specialties being in Congress and Public Forum.

In terms of LD I am fairly experienced with the debate. I was a competitor in it for my senior year of high school (yay being PF partners with someone a year older than you) I am very familiar with progressive debate.

Admittedly I am partial to Kritiks and Plans if you are going to go for the progressive route in the round. Of course I am willing to listen to theory but honestly there needs to be a real reason for it. Semantic theory shells will annoy me.

I am honestly really laid back, flex prep? Go ahead. Weird stuff you are trying out for the first time? Be my guest I love to be entertained. Reading free form poetry to smooth jazz in the middle of your 2ar? I don't see why, but by all means go ahead.

The only request I will make is in terms of speed. Sure you can speak a little faster than one might. But shy on the side of slow when it comes to the speed. If you are going too fast I will yell "clear" but the third time I say it my pen is going down and twitter memes will occupy my time for the rest of your speech.

Random Musing's

- Pls be nice to each other, I was always the mean debater but I think its a bad practice and I'll be sad if you are.

Best of luck to all of y'all

I’d like to start this talk off with a parable. A story if you will. I was at a college, a second tier, not an ivy league school, a second choice school, and I was in a class. And there was a student in that class, okay? And the, the teacher, he was spouting some horrible non-sense, about how, it was something about how women’s rights are not legitimate, something that everybody knew was false, but if anybody had spoken up, he would’ve taken extreme joy in failing them. Okay? Nobody spoke up. One person raised his voice. Once person started talking. The teacher couldn’t believe it, the classroom couldn’t believe it either. But in the end, he had logic on his side. And at the end of the day, he proved his point. That student was Albert Einstein.

I don’t flow crossfire, if something important happens, bring it up in a speech.

I need clean extensions, meaning that if there are responses on your argument that you don’t answer, I won’t count the extension. Moreover, things brought up in final focus must be cleanly extended through summary.

Rhetoric sounds pretty but it doesn’t win debates or make arguments, I want clash and warranting.

Please for the love of God weigh the impacts and arguments of the debate or I will and it might not end well for you.

Don’t give me off time roadmaps unless you’re doing something unique in speech structure (like responding to your opponents responses first in second rebuttal).

Finally, use key voters in summary and final focus, you will save time, be more clear, and weigh better. If for some reason you are compelled to just do the weird second rebuttal form of summary that competitors are so fond of nowadays I STILL NEED CASE EXTENSIONS, MAINLY WARRANTS. Just addressing responses and vaguely reaffirming your case and impacts is not specific or good enough.

I DON’T BUY BAD ARGUMENTS!

Content / Construction / Communication

Content - what did you say, how good were your sources, etc. 40%

Construction - how well did you piece together your speech 20%

Communication - how well did you deliver your speech 40%

About me: She/her pronouns. I did Congress (and some PF) for three years with Desert Vista High School, competed nationally a few times in that period.

Congress Paradigm:

- Congress is debate, and your speeches should follow debate flow. Don't give authorship speeches at the end of a round, don't try to crystalize after two speeches. If you did your research, you should be able to adapt and give a great speech no matter when you speak in the round.

- On that note, if a bill/res is super one-sided, or has few arguments, PLEASE drop it. I'd rather move on in the agenda than let stale debate continue for another hour.

- On presentation: I think the beauty of Congress is that you can give beautiful speeches and still have powerful debate at the same time!! That being said, I'll take a strong, clear argument over flowery-but-empty rhetoric any day of the week.

- Remember that even though this is make-believe congress, your words absolutely still have meaning and you can't just throw issues and impacts around like they're not real: every speech you give is an opportunity to use your platform and speak some good into the world, or whatever. Make your speeches meaningful, be creative, and be kind to others, and have fun!

- Oh also I'm not afraid to rank POs. Good POs deserve good ranks.

Congressional Debate

- I like unique/creative arguments and the use of props.

- I highly value good research and well-sourced information — and I will fact-check you.

- Good decorum is a must. I’m not judging based on the best debater, but rather, the best legislator. Keep your arguments within the relative mainstream.

- I do not value critical arguments or spreading.

Hi all reading this. First things first, good work checking paradigms your coach taught you well.

Next a bit about me. I have been coaching middle school debate for 6 years, competed in PF (2 years), LD (2 years), and college policy (1 year). Also, I serve on my city's Housing and Human Services Commission overseeing matters related to section 8, housing insecurity, and now Emergency Rental Assistance.

Finally, on to the part you are probably looking for. The flow determines the round. Please be sure to keep bringing up the most important contentions and don't drop them. I don't want to make a decision in your round because the flow should do it for me. Also be sure to clash, try to address every point your opponent brings up. You don't always need citations. If you can use raw logic to explain why a contention is incorrect then it is incorrect, just address it.

Speaker points are based on both your argument and performance. PF should be accessible if you spread you can still win the round but will have lower speaker points.

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

Hey everyone, my name is Jasmine (she/her/her's) and I come from four yeas of high school experience mainly in Congressional Debate (I competed at district and national level, CHSSA state, and was a finalist at the 2018 TOC) and am now entering my third year in collegiate debate. In college, I compete in the NPDA (parliamentary debate with more tech)/IPDA/BP formats so I am well-versed in everything from technical debate to more lay, rhetoric-heavy debate. I have been coaching debate for six years now and judging for three years, most recently at the 2020 NSDA nationals. I do not like/cannot follow *extreme* spreading, so please avoid doing that if I am judging a policy round. Overall, I look for well-articulated arguments with clear and coherent links as well as concrete impacts. Unique contentions are always a plus. It is very important in Congress to show to me that you are interacting with the round if you are one of the later speakers; clash is appreciated. In other debates, I would consider myself to be a flow judge, so organization and clarity is critical. I am also familiar with and have judged all speech events and there is less of a paradigm I can give for that because everyone is so different, just enjoy your time in speech and debate and performing! Best of luck to everyone!

 Conflicts: Park City

PF Debate

I vote off the flow 10/10 times

Good evidence is awesome

Be bold and take risks

Defense is overvalued

Weighing and offense are undervalued

Things that make me happy:

-       Great signposting

-       Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

-       Lots of evidence

-       Using Cross well - make it constructive. Be sassy. Being funny never hurts, either.

-       Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

-       Jokes

-       Off-time roadmaps 100% of the time.

Things that make me sad:

-       Improperly citing evidence

-       Miscutting/manipulating evidence

-       Drawn-out discussions in Cross that go nowhere. 

What I vote on - IMPACTS 1st!! If you don't provide impact calculations then I will base it off of what I think is most important. Framework (this means Value and Criterion) just because it's second doesn't mean I don't care about it. If you drop framework, I will drop you. 

Extending Args - If you extend an arg, you have a very good possibility of winning the round, that said if you extend an arg and don't give me impact based on that idea, or a card, it's meaningless to me. When people say he/she didn't attack my card, it's not impactful and you don't win based on that.

CPs/’Advocacies’?

Big Fan - If you have a CP make sure you explain it correctly and always give impacts and solvency for your CP. If your CP doesn't have solvency I won't vote on it. Advocacies are a necessity in LD. If you don't advocate for anything then I think you are only trying to get out of the negative impacts of the case.

Observations/ Burdens - If the AFF or NEG uses an observation or burden, you must answer it or you will fall under that. This means if your case doesn't follow the observation I will vote you down. You must answer them, or risk losing the round.

The K?

I have never had a good reason to learn about Kritical debate, so I have no understanding of how quality K’s should function and work, or how to judge a K. That said, I’m not going to specifically penalize you for running a K, I just probably won’t know what’s going on.

Speed?

Okay - I like to speed up to 300 wpm-ish. If you go really, really slowly I will get bored and may miss an argument. Second, if I can't understand you then I will set my pen down. If you don't see the pen down I will say clear. After the second time, and if nothing changes, I will stop flowing completely.

Slow down on tags and authors if you’re a speed demon.  

Other technical things: 

-       I’ll only evaluate things that are in both in 1AR and 2AR. Same for the NEG 1NR and 2NR

-       If you bring up a new attack in the 2AR or 2NR, you may still win but your speaker points will make you sad

-       I’m chill with any new evidence/args in the first summary, but no new evidence in the second summary please

-       I don’t flow cross-ex (this is my me-time during the round)

Speaker Points:

Short version - good at debate = high speaks

                     - pretty speaker = entirely meaningless

Long version - I give speaks based on the competitiveness of a tournament:

30 – you should go to finals

29.5 – you’re probably in mid-to-late breaks

29 - you should clear

28 – you might clear

27.5 - average. 3-3, probably.

26 - below average

25 and below - means that you were abusive and mean to your opponent

Hello, I am a parent judge. As such, I hope everyone speaks clearly and loudly, and not too fast so as to be unintelligible. Additionally, I value argumentation and any attempt to stimulate debate. I look forward to judging your event!

quest.sandel@ascendspeech.org for any and all questions. Please CC your coach if you reach out with a question. This paradigm is written for Congressional Debate.

Hey,

I am the Founder/Camp Director/Co-Owner at Ascend Speech & Debate, Director of Congressional Debate at James Logan High School, and former Director of Speech and Debate at John F. Kennedy High School in Sacramento, California.

First off, I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework for the round moving forward. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on whether or not this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations mixed with original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. At the end, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. No matter where you speak I want to see your personality/style shine through. Take risks and you'll likely be rewarded.

All effective argumentation is based around a solid understanding of the status quo. If you cant properly depict the status quo then I cant buy an argument from you. What's happening right now? Is the effect that this legislation has on it good or bad? How well you answer these questions will dictate your ranking from me.

Effective cross examination is when you attack the flaws in your opponents argument or set up refutations for your own. As long as you have a clear goal for your cross examination period, I'll appreciate your time. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer a calmer style of cross x.

When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a baseball batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker. DONT BE AFRAID TO TAKE RISKS.

I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two debaters. If you do it well then I'll boost you but if you don't then I'll drop you pretty far.

This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. Remember that your logic creates the argument then the evidence backs it up. Your evidence isn't your argument.

Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. Best of luck!

LD: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand relatively fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

for PF/LD: PLEASE weigh your impacts! It's never done enough and it's the most important part of any debate.

for congress: PLEASE weigh your impacts! It's never done enough, ESPECIALLY in Congress, and it's the most important part of any debate. I youralso wants to reflect your speaking position. If it's early in the round, constructive is great. But after a few cycles, you must have clash. By the end of the debate, I want to see summarization and crystalization.

It's your job as a speaker to be engaging. I will be ranking based on both delivery and speech content. So please slow down, speak fluently, and have fun!

Yes to the email chain: hannah.wilson@harker.org

It's important to me that judges act like educators (and by that I mean that I understand it's about the debaters and not me + professional boundaries are important). Debate is hard and we're all learning. My goal is to help make the experience as educationally valuable and fun as possible.

My debate experience: I did one year of PF in high school, one year of policy in high school, and three years of policy in college (2 at Weber and 1 at Concordia). I was an assistant coach at Copper Hills High School for 2 years, and a speech/congress coach at The Harker School for 4 years. I am now the head of the middle school program at The Harker School, coaching all the speech and debate events.

Policy & LD:

-I'm a competent person, but don't assume I have deep topic knowledge (especially with LD topics changing so often!). Don't assume I know what an acronym means. Don't assume I already know the link chain for the generic topic args. Don't assume I know about your aff. Even if I already do know about all of the things already, I think good debate requires painting the picture every time instead of just jumping to the end.

-Speed: Slow down and be clear on your analytics!!!!!! It seems like judges are just flowing off of docs, which is incentivizing people to spread theory/t/framework to get through more, but I am not that judge. I haven't judged a debate yet where I felt someone went too fast in the cards for me to keep up and follow. It's the keeping that same speed throughout all your analytics + lack of clarity and emphasis on the things you think are important that becomes the problem.

-I think signposting is so important! I'd much prefer a speech that says things like "on the circumvention debate" "on the link debate" "they say x we say y" than speeches that read as one big essay/overview. I'll still flow it, but the chances I miss a little thing that you decide to blow up later go up when your signposting is poor.

-While I've coached and judged LD, I never did it so some of the quirks are still foreign. I've heard the word tricks, but don't know what that is. The brief explanations I've received have me skeptical, but I'll listen to any arg with warrants and an impact.

-Theory: I have a high threshold for theory. I'm fine with debates about debate, but I don't know if I've ever seen a theory speech that goes in depth enough to do that well. If your theory shell was a full and cohesive argument in the constructive (i.e. the violation was specific and clear + the impact was specific and clear) and it's conceded entirely I'll vote for it. If it's like a one sentence just incase thing in the constructive, I probably don't think it was a full argument so even if they conceded it I might not buy it. Condo will be hard to win. If they are really reading *that* many off case, those arguments are probably very underdeveloped and some could even be answered by a few reasonable analytics. Do not read disclosure theory in front of me if it's the first debate on a new topic. The theory I'm most likely to be persuaded by is perf con.

-Framework: I'll happily vote for framework. Be specific about what ground you've lost and why it matters. Education > Fairness impacts. Affs need to prove their reps are desirable before weighing extinction against Ks.

-Ks: Make sure your link is specific to the aff. Be specific about how and what your alt solves. If it's an epistemology alt that's fine, but I need you to do thorough explanation of why that's the preferable way to debate and a sufficient enough reason to get my ballot. Don't assume I have a background in your specific K.

-Disads: Got a soft spot for a good politics disad. I'd prefer to watch a debate with core topic disads and a strong link than a new disad that might have a weaker link. Will still vote on it if they don't have answers, but I prefer watching a debate with clash. Don't assume I have background on your disads. Explain the story clearly.

Public Forum:

-Y'all should just start sending all of your evidence. It's a waste of my time and yours to wait for evidence to be called to slowly send over things card by card. It will also hold everyone to higher evidence standards if the community starts evidence sharing and debates will get better.

-I know there is some division on this, but I do think the first rebuttal speech should still talk about their case. It's good to start filtering the debate through your impacts right away.

Congress:

Honestly, y'all don't need paradigms. This is a speech event and if you're thinking of it as a debate event you should reorient your strategy. That said, I know people want to read paradigms anyways so... I really value rebuttals. Constructives can do well in front of me, but if you give more than one speech in a round and both are constructives I'll feel like that's because you don't know how to be off script. Remember you are in a room with a bunch of other students... it's hard for your judges to remember all of you. Be an active participant in questioning and the house to help yourself stand out. Cheesy, but I think of the round in terms of who I would want to be my representative. Not necessarily because they agree with all the things I already think, but because they are actively engaged in questioning, are good at responding to opposing arguments, and have a nice balance between pathos and logos. Greatest speeches might not get my 1 if they are disengaged from every other part of the round.

I debated LD for 4 years at Catalina Foothills High School and was a coach at SWSDI. If you have specific questions about anything, feel free to ask me before the round or email me: sylviazarnescu@email.arizona.edu

Generally, I will try to judge as fairly as possible but please refrain from reading anything/being offensive in front of me. Be respectful to me and your opponent, try to have a good time, and remember, it's just high school debate.

——

I tend to like Ks and philosophy heavy/interesting frameworks, but if you're reading these make sure you actually understand the literature you cut/reference. Please actually engage in fw debate, maybe even impact back to your opponent's fw if you wanna get really crazy.

I don't necessarily need the alt to "solve" but please at least explain it in detail if you want me to buy into it. Also, I might not understand all of the literature you're reading so it's nice to put a little 1-3 sentence underview at the end of what you're reading to help me understand the argument in ~simple language~.

——

Policy is fine but just please please please do not read 14 DAs in front of me—I deeply dislike them. I am also more inclined towards creative plans/CPs—aka use specific links and explain them pls.

——

Theory is fine but if I think it's blippy or dumb I probably will not vote on it.

——

I expect you to explain your warrants when you first read them but I am fine if you just extend claim and impact in later speeches. Also, PLEASE WEIGH. Tell me what the most important arguments are and give me a metric (or multiple) to weigh them. Collapse in your final speech, pls. If you don't do this work for me you leave it up to ME to figure out what I think is most important and you may not like that.

——

Also, I haven't debated in over a year so pls be kind I am not updated on everything in the debate world anymore and if I am giving you a confused look that is a hint that I might need some extra explanation so adjust and make it more analytical or something.

Speed is ok but if I say clear more than twice I might stop flowing and WILL dock you speaker points.

I will also more than likely either ask for your cases or to read your cards so I can reference them during the round or just add me to the email chain, whatever. I don't count flashing as prep.