I am looking for competitors who speak clearly and present their material so that it can be uderstood easily. Those that speak too fast so that I can't follow will lose points in my book. Clever and original materials and presentations are my favorite. Have fun and be respectful.

Hi! I've been judging debate for 4 years now. I primarily have experience with PF and have judged at tournaments like TOC and SCU, but at the core I AM A LAY JUDGE. However, I still vote tech > truth. At the end of the day, even if you make bad arguments, if your opponents do NOT call you out for it, I'll buy the arg.

BUT, some key things to note (no matter how tech > truth I am, I AM STILL LAY):

1) Do not spread please. I will look at you in confusion if this happens, because I cannot flow that fast.

2) ALL RACIST, !!SEXIST!!, HOMOPHOBIC, and OVERALL AGGRESSIVE rhetoric is not tolerated and will result in an automatic drop.

3) I watch cross, but don't judge on it. You don't have to scream at each other.

4) do not read theory or Ks, because I don't know the formalities of it. however I will evaluate progressive argumentation as long as the framing is clear because its important to have that in the debate space

In conclusion, you're all winners! please have fun! THANK YOU COME AGAIN.

- main ideas written by my daughter (neha seshadri of mira loma gs)

Speech Judging: As the parent of a speech participant I've been judging speech and debate events for a year now. I have found that you guys know what you are doing and do it exceptionally well. I am here to judge, not critique but more to judge how much I have been moved and persuaded, or impressed with the depth of thought that has gone into a piece and how well it has been expressed. I've seen very great performances from confident polished performers and have rated them lower than other performers who, quite frankly struggled but, did better in what appeared to be their ability in providing a more thoughtful piece. So I judge based on the criteria for each event and making sure you follow the rules you are given and after that its all about the beauty depth and thoughtfulness that is in the piece and the performance. In the end it I weigh it up like this.

Rules: Did you follow the rules (20%).

Speaking Skills: Enunciation, speed and pauses, volume (20% +).

Content: Subject and connectivity, can I follow you, does it tie together. Not the quality of the subject but how well it was pieced together, simple points if done right are remarkable (20% +)

Believable: Was there heart and conviction? Winston Churchill, Jesse Jackson reading Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham", actors (not in film) on Broadway, my college Chemisty prof. History prof. Writing prof, and of course my high school lit teacher. All transcended enthusiasm and were what they were speaking. That will get (40%) weight as long as the other 3 were in check or better.

Public Forum Judging: I am the "Public" in Public Forum. I am a parent of a speech(er) and have never done debate myself. I have judged PuFo. since last year and seen the best in the nationals tournament, so I know what is good. That being said I do not know the technical aspect of the "sport" but rather enjoy a good well fought game. I like clear points that are backed by evidence and some common sense. I expect every point or argument to be addressed, if not it flows to the side that brought it up. Of course I won't consider any new argument in the last round that will not be able to be addressed. I go in these with an attitude of "I know nothing". Cross can be a game changer if you are able to show flaw in the others argument and/or it can be just a ho hum time where nothing is gained or lost. Civility counts. I don't mind if you talk fast I can speed listen but make your points clear if you want them to stick.

Speaker points are based on the first round I see of the day. They are usually 27 if they are good, great gets 28. by the end of the 6th round the 27 may be the lowest score of the day or the 28 may have been the best. Again I come in with a clean slate and do my best to compare quality of speaking with the talent of the day. I also look at capability. I have seen debates when the debaters could hardly pick their eyes off their shoes but they spoke so clear and with thought they received high points.

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

LD: Veteran competitor. I like creativity. I don't flow cross-ex, so don't be timid - I want to watch you work and idle cross time is wasted time.

- Spread at your own risk: I will not punish you for speed but if you are unclear or I can't flow quickly enough to keep up, I can't give you credit for a point. I will give one verbal warning if I start to lose you, and it's on you after that.

- Progressive argumentation permitted, but I am not generous to arguments that attempt to circumvent a perfectly acceptable resolution or advocacy. That goes for both Kritik positions and theory defenses: I'm fine with debaters running them, but make sure your links are completely airtight. If you tell me something is so wrong with the round that I need to judge in your favor because of it, there needs to actually be something wrong with the round.

PF: Keep it simple. Frameworks help with weighing, if you choose to employ them, but I openly discourage speed and progressive argumentation in this format. If a non-specialist can't understand your argument, this is not the place for it and you should strongly consider moving to CX.

LD
Judging Experience: 14 Years
High school coach, 10 years
High school policy debate, 4 years.


Overview: in general, I prefer traditional value debate in LD. My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc.
I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Be a debater, not a competitive librarian.


Plans: I will accept cases which offer some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being different from Policy—I don't think very narrow and specific plans are effective in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with something squirrely (and potentially abusive), that’s not ok. With that in mind, it's debaters' responsibility to point out that their opponent is running squirrely/abusive plan.


Kritiks: I'll accept them.


Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.


Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing.


Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).

I have two years of debate experience on the college level, and I've been judging highschool speech and debate for four years now.

The best way to convince me as your judge is to be very clear on your impact calculus. Tell me why exactly your impacts are the most important thing in the round, make me understand why I care more about your arguments than your opponents.

Even though I was a debater for a while, I'd rather not have to deal with speed, unless I have your doc. In any form of debate where I don't have your doc, I don't want to start calling slow, but I will if I need to. If you lose a judge because I can't understand you, that's on you.

There is nothing I love more than well-structured debate. So, tell me where we are on the flow, and keep everything clean. Please signpost, I’ll be really happy if you signpost.

I have zero tolerance for any level of disrespect towards opponents. If you are being rude, making sly comments, yelling at someone, making faces, anything along those lines I will drop you, or your speaker points. There is a distinct difference between being passionate and confident in your arguments or questioning their logic, and being downright disrespectful.

Tl:dr, keep the debate space clean, respectful and accessible to everyone = we will get along just fine.

bonus points if you can guess my favorite animal crossing villager

I am a parent with experience judging at league and invitational tournament events since 2016. I have no personal experience competing, but I appreciate creative and well-argued approaches to the resolutions. I frown upon cases that appear to be lifted from the internet since conventional and formulaic case presentations tend to sound more alike as the season progresses.

Please do not spread at the expense of diction. If you see me put down my pen, I am no longer following your argument. I judge based on clear logical flow of arguments and proper clash. While I try to follow the technical aspects of the debate (e.g. if contentions are addressed or not in the rebuttal), I do not appreciate when students argue that they win the debate based on technical principles alone.

Absent unethical behavior, I expect to award points in the 27-29 point range, holding 30 for exceptional and rare cases. I put a high value on professional demeanor and frown upon overly aggressive attacks on your opponent. I also frown upon asking opponents to repeat what they just said, with the exception of asking to see cards. Full points will not be awarded if a competitor's ultimate case is based on mass extinction or nuclear annihilation where I have to suspend my otherwise tabula rasa foundation.

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread or use progressive arguments. I do flow. I prefer truth over tech. I like when you do impact calculus and make my decision easier for me. I do not care what you wear. Please do not run theory. If you have written a storytelling version of your AC or NC, you should read that instead of reading a traditional LD case with all your cards cut. I listen to cross-ex, but I do not pay much attention. You should set up a big picture that is easy for me to follow in your later speeches.

I did PF in high school (though my main event was Interp) and have judged PF at various tournaments. I'm currently a sophomore at Yale, prospectively majoring in Global Affairs/Econ.

Keeping this paradigm simple and concise:

-Spreading is fine (I did it a lot as well--and I can keep up when I judge)

-Weighing is absolutely crucial in final focus--don't make me do the work for you!

-Clash

There you go! Simple and concise! Have fun!

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

I'll reserve judgement round by round.

However, I want a couple things to be known.

First, keep the rounds clean. Honestly, I'll vote for most things, however if you ask yourself whether this is okay to run, then don't run it.

Second, if I can't understand what you're saying I'm not going to flow it.

Finally, I expect, as high school students, that you have the maturity to solve in round issues. Let me know if you need my input during round.

Ask me anything else within round.

General:

- Pronouns: she/her

- I have experience competing/judging/coaching in CD, PF, LD, and WSD.

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations, please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponents.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

LD:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Although I prefer a traditional debate, I can follow/have voted on most progressive arguments.

- Spread all you like, but it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponent.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

Hello everyone!

My paradigms are as follows:

Philosophy:

I like debates that emphasize on philosophical aspects - really concentrate on value and criterion. Evidence itself can be convincing, but ideologies are the end result of debates for me.

Traditional LD:

I think traditional LD provides the structure and clarity that a debate needs. I am open to newer types of debate but the debater needs to make it clear what they are saying (explain topicality, k, policy, etc... I'm not a policy debater, so I'm just "spewing" things right now...haha)

Other than that, lets get this show on the road!

I've been a Speech and Debate coach for the past 7 years, but primarily on the Speech side.

When it comes to policy debate, I tend to be more of a stock issues judge and believe that the Aff's burden is to protect and prove the stock issues; I especially look for that. I also want you to clearly articulate your positioning and prove why your arguments outweigh your opponent.

For Congress, be clear and efficient with your speeches. Feel free to lean into the "Congressional" part of it and performance is always key, but if you don't have sufficient evidence and don't explain or otherwise discuss the consequences and implications of that evidence then all the rhetoric in the world won't make up for it.

Overall, please speak clearly and slowly. Do not spread. And above all, analyze your evidence. Don't let it stand for itself - prove why it's important.

Background: I have been judging speech and debate for the last four years. I have a lot of respect for the amount of research and time that goes into preparing and delivering a quality debate.

Style: I prefer traditional debate, delivered at a traditional speed, with value and criterion and clear contentions and subpoints. I judge the round based on your framework, impact analysis and flow. Please be very clear about the impacts of your arguments. Saying things like "the magnitude of my/my opponent's impact is x" will go far towards my understanding of the voting issues in the round. If your framework is complex, please explain it very clearly. The winner of the round will be the one who most clearly presented their side of the argument, defended it, and attacked their opponent's. I will flow with you, and will be tracking each of the arguments. My own opinions on the topic will never be a factor in my decision.

Speed: I prefer conversational pace. Rate of speed does not factor into my decision. If you speak too quickly, however, I might miss important elements of your case. Please signpost your contentions and subpoints slowly and clearly so I can flow with you. You can also share your case with me to help with this. My email is sharmilla@venturelearning.org

Cross-X and Voters: I appreciate good clash, especially in Cross-X (but do not be rude to your opponent). I do not flow this portion of the debate. If you bring up any points in Cross-X that you feel are good voting issues, please clearly state them in your follow-up speeches. Please do not bring up any new arguments in your final speeches-- I will not include them in my flow. I appreciate voters in the final speeches of both the affirmative and the negative. These should include not only why your case wins, but also provides the impacts of your case vs. your opponent's case. Signposting the attacks on your opponent’s case is also of value in determining the winner of the debate

Theory: If you are going to run theory, I need you to be very clear why your interpretation should be valued in the round, as well as the violation and the impact that it has on the round. I am not very familiar with debate jargon, so if you are going to run theory, please simplify it so I can understand.

Topicality: This will not be a major voting issue in the round. If something is clearly untopical, please mention it.

Respect: I enjoy good clash--heated debates are fine (and fun!), but please be respectful of each other. Comments that are homophobic, racist, sexist, or at all discriminatory will result in an automatic loss and poor speaker points.

Coaching for 23 years and taught debate for same amount of time. Holistic judge/flow judge, but want CLASH on both sides. I am okay with speed, but should not deplinish your arguments-those come first. Some progressive is okay, don't like Plans or Counter Plans-those need to stay in CX.

This is still value debate so would like to see value criterion used and supported.

K's okay, not optimal, but will listen to them.

Standing during debate is a must-lazy if you don't.

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This applies largely to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

I'm a current law student but am a former high school debate competitor and collegiate speech competitor. I have the greatest amount of coaching and judging in experience in LD but have judged PF for the last five years.

I keep a detailed flow of the round and ask that warrants be extended on key arguments you extend throughout the debate.

Please be respectful in crossfire/cx.

I find rounds work best when debaters also time themselves and cross time their opponents.

In order to reduce the likelihood of any technical issues, I ask that you take necessary precautions (e.g. quitting programs not needed on your computer, testing your WiFi connection, etc.).

Please feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round starts so we begin on time. Thank you, and good luck!

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

• content — good presentation of information, structure,
• strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
• style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

• RVIs on T,
• friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
• Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
• and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a traditional LD judge with experience. As the competitor, you must explain to me why you win. While I will vote on arguments if that is what you convince me to vote on, I prefer that you strongly support your value/criterion and impact. You are able to win under your opponent's value/criterion. I am not a strong proponent of progressive LD, so if you are going to run theory or a K, you must be prepared to strongly defend its use. I will not automatically vote down the the use of theory or a K.

Moderate speed - if I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

Public Forum

I have experience judging PF, but I have never competed in PF. As the competitor, you must explain to me why you win - convince me. Impact your arguments clearly. Also, I am not economist.

Moderate speed - if I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

Hey! I am a dad judge with no experience. I judge lay and my daughter taught me so please adapt. There are a few things I need to see from you to win the round.

1. WEIGH: Weighing is the most important thing. If you do not tell me what to vote for, I will have to decide. You don't want that, so please make it easy for me to prioritize your arguments.

2. EXPLAIN: Explain clearly the narrative of your argument. I care about reasoning and articulation backed by evidence.

3. SUMMARY: Anything you want me to evaluate has to be in summary, otherwise I won't vote for it. I'm pretty sure that's a rule.

4. K, OKAY: If you want to read a progressive argument (framework or a K), I will evaluate it like you tell me to in the round. Just explain it clearly and why I should vote for it.

5. FUN: Have some!!

Last, I do not tolerate, racism, sexism, or misgendering. You are debating a resolution not individuals. If you act in such a way that disrespects your opponents identity, I will drop you. No exceptions.

I require extensive statistics and proof of credentials to accept and effectively compare an argument. I have several years of experience as a PF competitor and judge.

Style:

• Speed: Speak clearly regardless of your speed. Don’t use speed as a tool of exclusion. You should make sure your opponent is okay with spreading in order to have a productive debate. If you need to speak quickly to make all of your arguments slow down on the important points, I will only evaluate arguments that make it to my flow.
• Flex Prep: I have no problem if debaters choose to use some of their prep time for additional clarification questions.
• Be respectful and professional! This is supposed to be fun and educational, don’t be rude.

Content:

• Theory: Demonstrable, round-specific abuse is necessary for me to vote on theory arguments. I would rather hear arguments that address the substantive issues of the round so please consider the legitimacy of the argument on the discourse of the round before running Theory.
• Kritik: I love a good, thorough K argument! (with strong links and impacts)
• Of course counterplans and similar arguments are fine provided they are topical.
• Theory shells aren't my favorite, but I'll listen.
• I will entertain most arguments as long as you are deliberate about your choices and provide significant and high-quality impacts. If you can't explain to me how this argument weighs out in evaluation of the round, I am not likely to vote on that argument. If nobody does a good job providing me with a quality impact calculus, then I am likely to start looking for my own reasons to prefer one side over the other instead of remaining tabula rasa. Do your work so I don’t have to do it for you!

Creative Writing college student paying attention to detail.

I am happy to witness the growth of our future leaders.

As background: I competed locally/nationally during high school in Congress, PF, and Extemp.

Congress: Every speech after the authorship should include refutation. I love a good crystallization speech, provided you do it with clear presentation, effective impact weighing, and still contribute something of your own. Not all of your questions in direct cross need to be related to your speech, but content matters more to me than quantity. Feel free to make jokes and add humor to your speeches (they make the round interesting, and we all know how long Congress is), but keep it respectful.

LD: Full disclosure that I have never judged LD before. For this reason you're probably better off avoiding more technical aspects (K's, theories, plans), since I'd prefer not to vote for an argument that I don't understand. Give me impacts and weigh them, use your value/criterion throughout the round, and condense the debate for me through every speech so it is clear what issues I should be voting on. I won't flow CX, and please don't spread - speak clearly, especially for tags.

Key Considerations:

• Substance and quality of argument outweighs style of argumentation.

• Provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed.

• Strong development of IMPACTS, appropriate evidence, proper linkage are all assets in round.

• Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground. Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponents.

• In the end, give me a clear route to giving you a winning ballot.

Experience:

• This is ONLY MY SECOND YEAR Speech and Debate coach. I am still learning and adjusting. I have judged in Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln Douglas debates at district tournaments, state tournaments and national tournaments.

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

I'm fairly new to judging and have no prior experience in speech or debate. I have no problem processing complex concepts, however I prefer those concepts to be communicated at a normal pace.

Hello! I have been a commercial litigator for 39 years and have tried numerous cases to judges and juries in addition to arguing thousands of motions.

I have been judging speech and debate competitions for six years.

For Debate:

I do not mind speed as long as there is clarity. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your arguments. I do like a road map to help me follow you.

I am fairly familiar with debate jargon, but not necessarily every specific term. I enjoy seeing clash in the debate, flowing your arguments all the way through, and weighing arguments. I want to see the impacts and links within your arguments.

I do not mind passionate debaters, but please be respectful toward your opponents.

I do not like and don't understand progressive arguments.

For Speech Events:

I enjoy creativity in content and expression in delivery. I like movement and vocal expression.

For performance events my rankings are based mostly on the quality of the performance but also on how well your speech presented a full story.

For extempt and impromptu, I have a greater emphasis on organization and content than on delivery.

Truth > tech. I'm a lay judge. Give me big picture, comparative analysis, and weighing, and you'll probably walk away with the ballot! I may/may not be flowing, but I'm still new to the event and debate in general so please go slow.

I try to judge under value/value criterion, I need you to be explicit about your link to the V/VC, and do comparative analysis between your V/VC and our opponents.

About me:

I mostly end up judging PuFo, so my paradigm is for that.

Judging style: Team

I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech, if I miss something, I do ask for cards mentioned.

Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. Otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I have a daughter who does policy and LD and she has explained me what it is and how to evaluate it. Feel free to run it with me.

I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that.

Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc)

I do take notes so don't try to pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it (Not all the time though)

I like off time roadmap. Helps me be organized.

Judging style: Individual Speaker:

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down to the lowest.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

General:

Do not try to shake hands.

If you need any clarity on paradigms, more than welcome to ask me before debate on a 1-1 basis or anyways.

I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit for the Blake School from 2014-2018. I also coached for the Nueva School my first year in college. I'm currently a senior at UC Berkeley studying Political Economy. I haven't been involved in debate for a few years now, so please don't go super fast, but other than that I still remember how the activity works.

Who I am:

To keep this short so you have enough time to stress, I have going on to about 4 and a half years of debate experience. For three of those I competed in Public Form. The last bit has been LD. Out of high school and into college, I've competed in LD, IPDA, NPDA, and Extemp.

What I vote on:

I will, above anything else, vote off of flow. However, if neither team upholds a strong flow, I'll vote off of the burdens established in round. If neither is established, I'll insert my own opinion. <-----You don't want the latter.

Case:

As a judge, I'll vote on what you tell me to vote on. I'm okay with Theory, Performance, whatever.

As a person, I'll give you a hint and tell you that if I, "feel" anything is abusive, I'll be less likely to vote on you.

Furthermore, make sure to make any and all arguments have links. Especially if you're running a K, theory, CP, etc. ->Manage your flow efficiently.

However, don't expect me to not vote for something just because it doesn't have a link. I'm expecting both debaters to check each other and if a bad argument is not challenged, I'll have no choice but to consider it along with any other argument made in round.

A disclaimer though. I will personally drop any theory argument if its construction isn't correct.

Me as a judge:

I will be calling cards if I don't believe their legitimacy. In the same way, if you feel like a card is illegitimate. Call it and I'll take a look at it.

I'd prefer that there be some form of evidence share so we don't have the above issue. I don't have a preference, so email, usb, or some form of live file share is fine.

Speed:

For speed, I leave this to the competitors to establish a generally "okay" speed. However, ill flow what I hear.

Time:

I consider Roadmaps off-time.

Cross, If a question is asked before cross ends, the one being questioned is obligated to answer.

Speeches, you can conclude your thoughts, however I will not flow anything past your speech time and the one line grace period. So if you want to speak for an extra minute, that's cool, just I, nor anyone who reads my paradigm, will be flowing it.

Extra:

Be polite.

I prefer that we not have timer's make noise as I find it annoying.

I will take liberty in my speaker points, however now that I will rarely give a 30 speaker point to anyone, even if you win.

AKA: You need to be completely perfect to get a 30 in a round with me as a judge.

Remember to have fun. The worst thing that any competitor can do is take the fun out of this sport. Remember to enjoy yourself and try your best.

If you respect your opponent and your judge, then regardless of the decision the round will be enjoyable.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or need further explanation, I would be happy to give it during round.

Thank you for reading my Paradigm! See you in round and Good Luck!

P.S: "My friends consider me "Shapely""

HI COMPETITORS!

Super excited to see all of your performances/speeches! Couple things about me: I am a TOC Finalist/Semifinalist in DUO and HI, a Semifinalist at the NIETOC in DUO, two time state champ in DUO and HI and broke at nats so you're in good hands folks.

I want you to move me...

Humorous, dramatic, or both, I want to see pieces of literature transformed into living pieces of art. I want to see intros that are used purposefully, teasers that capture my attention effectively, and messages that could make me look at things differently. I'd like to see you get up there, give your title and begin. I am ready when my attention is on you. Once you are up there, embrace everything that you have prepared and (while hard) try not to get the jitters XD

Keep lovin' what you're doin,

Dawson Mullen

Background: 4 years LD at Brophy College Prep in Phoenix, AZ
Graduated 2016

krishnamuruganaz@gmail.com for your email chains

Truthfully, I think I'm basically a fossil in this community. I graduated years ago and don't really compete in college. I judge maybe two tournaments out of the year at most. At this point, my paradigm has become a series of opinions about debate that maybe not alot of people share.

Anyways, first things first: DONT SHAKE MY HAND

I honestly hate when people do that.

Actual paradigm stuff:

Personally, I don't think the judge is an educator. Really, all I'm contractually obligated to do is listen to you speak for an hour and then sign a ballot. I'm a glorified scoreboard. Any educating I do occurs after I sign and submit the ballot. That basically means I'm gonna evaluate your arguments as points. Whether or not you score higher points depend on if you link to your framework well and have solid impacts. If have a solid story from why I care about your framework to why that means I vote for you, then I'll probably vote for you. I'm pretty good at understanding arguments, but dontd assume I'll get everything. If you don't explain your argument clearly, I'll be sad. I really just don't wanna think. If I don't have to think, I'll like you more.

Speed is maybe fine? Given a speech doc, I can keep up easy. But I'm an ancient 20 something years old now and I have 0 incentive to be able to keep up with your speed now

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kritiks are cool. Run your crazy shit, just don't read any offensive stuff.

Theory is dumb but I'll vote on it. That being said, I'm of the opinion that theory as it's run now is more abusive as opposed to actually checking abuse. If I can find an excuse not to vote on theory, I won't vote on theory. I default to reasonability and RVIs

PICs are stupid but honestly kinda funny to listen to. I'll totally vote on one with no regrets.

Tricks are bad for debate. Fuck you if you read these.

If I didn't mention something, just assume I'm cool with it.

Speaks:

25-26: not great, missing extensions, super unclear, probably undercovered a bunch, made me sad because it doesn't seem like you care about the activity

26-27: same as the above except you didn't make me sad because you like debate and it's obvious you're trying

27-28: a few mistakes here and there but good extensions and a clear understanding of what arguments you were going for. Most people probably end up here

28-29: quality extensions and some really interesting arguments. Tbh probably the same as 27-28 except I thought your case was cool and unique

29-30: I think you're gonna go far in the tournament. Wrapped up everything neatly in a bow for me and I don't have to think at all. also probably gets a smiley face on your ballot

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

EYYYYYY WHATS UP LMAO WELCOME TO ASUUUUUU

I’ll be looking for a good message from your piece. Whether it’s humorous, dramatic, or both, I’ll be a meaningful moral. Also, don’t suck up to me. I’ve done debate for 4 years, I can tell. One more thing: have fun!! I’ll write helpful criticism to all pieces and let you know why I ranked you a certain way. There’s nothin’ better than a nice, full ballot. I will be looking for details in a piece and how well I can see you connecting to your character. There’s a difference between acting and interpreting in my eyes.

I’ve mainly competed in Congress, Informative, and Duo. I’m a ASU Duo Finalist 2018, UKTOC Duo finalist 2018, NIETOC Duo semifinalist 2018, and a double National informative qualifier, 2017 and 2018. I enjoy watching almost all speech events and look forward to seeing your piece.

Don’t stress kiddos I’m super nice and will probably crack a joke here or there if the round is tense. Ily and I’m proud of all of y’all. Peace.

My number one rule: if you're a douche, you lose.

If the round devolves into a yelling match or teams bullying each other, I will not be happy. You start mansplaining, using ad hominem, any of that, I don't care what your arguments are, because you don't deserve to break. Please be respectful and cordial to your opponents, regardless of the circumstances.

Now that the serious stuff is out of the way: I am a founding member of my team, NWCTA from Las Vegas, was PF captain for two years, and I qualified to Nationals (2017), ended with a ballot of 7-5 and competed in IntPF, Tournament of Champions (2017) Silver, and broke at ASU (2017).

Technical preferences:

1.) You won't lose me on the flow, but don't spread or I will like you less. This is PF, not policy.

2.) Make eye contact with me, not your opponents. This goes for giving speeches and cross-examination periods.

3.) Things said, whether they be additional cards or responses, during cross-examination do not affect the round. If you would like them to, reference them in one of your speeches. Cross-ex does not factor into my judging of the round, but I do use it to award speaker points. I will not flow cross-ex, but I will be listening.

4.) Because my political opinions are so strong, I judge tabula rasa (blank slate) to keep it as fair as possible. If you tell me something, I will take it as true unless it's blatantly false, racist/bigoted, etc. However, I will be well-read on the topic, and I will call out disputed cards or anything I find fishy after the round is over.

5.) If you speak well, I will award speaker points appropriately, but don't assume your speaking ability will carry the round. I will give the round to the quiet team with well-developed arguments over the loud, obnoxious team that insists on addressing me and insisting "Judge, sign your ballot right now because..." No. (Do not address me directly, that is one of my biggest pet peeves.)

6.) Summaries need to be used exclusively for weighing and impact calculus. Tell me how to weigh. If you leave the weighing up to me, you will not like the results.

7.) All points made in summary need to be extended into final focus. Whatever is not extended will be dropped.

8.) Roadmaps are great. Attempt to number your responses and move down the flow. Be concise with your words. I'll be listening; if you say something once, unless you're extending the point, you do not need to repeat yourself.

9.) Do not go over time for summaries and final focuses. 10 seconds is permissible for constructives and rebuttals.

Aha, I didn't intend for this to be so serious - but I hope this conveys that I will be judging your round with a lot of active engagement and consideration. Looking forward to seeing you in-round!

(If you can make a joke about anime that is relevant to your case, I will bump you up to 30 speaker points.)

I have been judging speech events since September of 2017. I have judged almost every event, and am fairly familiar with the rules.

I would like the name of your piece beforehand, especially for impromptu and extemp. Note, this does not mean the prompt, but the actual name you give your speech. Puns are preferred, though not necessary (if you want to lose). If you are doing oratory, be sure that your piece does not contain too many quotes. I count every single word that comes out of your mouth, and I will know if you go over the 10% maximum. If you are doing interp, I hope that you have the source material with you, as this is a requirement according to the NSDA rules. I like to read along in order to ensure adherence to the source material. This goes double for duo. In informative, you will be marked down for every fact or statistic you say that I already know: you can't call it informative if you're not teaching me new things. Additionally, bonus points will be awarded if you use a chair as a "visual aid" because standing is difficult with the amount of sleep deprivation you undoubtedly have. In all events that I judge, an extra speaker point is awarded if someone shouts, "World star!" after a joke that I find funny, both to the shouter and the joke teller. Rapping automatically ensures 50 speaks, unless your flow is whack, dawg. That is not dank nor is it on fleek.

Speech is supposed to be a fun event. Make me laugh or make me feel something emotionally. Hopefully you can tell that I have a sense of humor. It goes without saying that the middle paragraph should be completely disregarded. Paradigms are mostly a debate thing, but high school students do tend to be paranoid. Anyway, that's my 20 cents. If you didn't understand that pun, you lose ten speaker points. I can always tell based on the look in your eyes ;)

P.S. It has come to my attention after I submitted this that I will be judging debate as well. Bring your own coins. I am broke. I expect that you will all be timing yourselves, though I do keep time as well (even if it is by counting out loud the entire time in the event that my phone dies). I pay attention to crossfire. My son has informed me that I do not flow formally, though I do take extensive notes of the arguments made throughout the round when I'm not doodling. I am aware that final focus is only permitted to extend things that were stated in summary. I'm not familiar with kritiques or theory shells, but go ahead and try them, especially if they mention Kanye West. I am more lay than tech, but less lay than most. If you find an excuse to engage in a rap battle to determine the victor of the round, you are not the first one I've seen (I wasn't the judge for that round, but I have heard the GLORIOUS stories). This remains to be my 20 cents, and even though debate is often less humorous, I expect the same understanding of my puns.

***No prior debate experience (lay judge), however, been judging Individual Events and occasionally Public Forum for the past 4 years

- state your framework (if you have one) at the beginning of your debate

- when you state your contentions, make sure you state them clearly

- off-time roadmaps are helpful

- prefer no spreading, but keep in mind I can't flow towards you if I can't understand/hear you

- prefer you keep your own times

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

I am in tech management and I enjoy debate judging after both my children took avid interest in PF in their high school years.

What I like is a healthy clash between the teams while maintaining respect for each other:

- I will look for a clear case advocating a position with succinct arguments and credible data to bolster the position. If you pique my interest in your constructive speeches with well structured contentions it helps me stay more glued

- Be clear in your delivery and use inflection as needed. Remember, it's not the volume of words you deliver in a minute but the quality and articulation which will have a greater impact.

- While I can follow fast speakers, I may not be able to flow if you are too fast and that might not help you

- I consider arguments that are realistic and could actually happen stronger than hypothetical ones. Extrapolation is fine as long as there is sound data or precedence to back it up

- Refutations or responses will need to address the full length of the argument. Don't make partial attempts as that leaves the argument standing

- Winning formula - If you have one killer argument remaining which had plenty of data that outweighed all the refutations

- BEST OF LUCK!!

I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.

To the point:

I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.

What does that mean?

Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around.

Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.

FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.

While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)

Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.

I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise, all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.

BOTTOM LINE:

If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.

Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.

As it relates to LD -

Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.

Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have the opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.

“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk

I evaluate the framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.

If they say they are in the direction of the topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.

I prefer students to use cx for questions and answer exchanges, not for extra prep.

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

I was a policy debater for four years in high school and four years in college at Arizona State University. I debated at the NDT in 1988 and 1989, and broke in 1989.

I don't have strong opinions what arguments should or should not be made. I'm fine with critiques, framework, theory and performance but also like "traditional" (plan, solvency, topicality and disad) debates. My verbal paradigm when I'm asked is that I have probably seen it all and have voted for it at some point. I am fine with speed and will take a flash of the speeches to get a better idea of the evidence as it is being presented. My RFD's are based on in-round arguments. I've been a volunteer coach and judge since about 2008 and in that time have judged multiple debates on each year's policy topic. I also judge Lincoln Douglas with the same paradigm.

Competed lightly for two years, coach limited prep these days.

I will listen to anything as long as you avoid spreading too quickly on complicated Ks. Crystallization is important for me.

I will flow, and I will vote on WHAT YOU TELL ME (minus new arguments in the final speech) I won’t do any work for you. Either way, have fun and enjoy.

I am an ex debater and coach.

Send a speech doc if you plan to spread.

I don't require front lining in second rebuttal or extensions of terminal defense in first summary. However, if second rebuttal frontlines and first summary does not interact with said frontlines, than the argument is conceded in summary.

Ask me anything else

I believe that speech and debate serves as a way to learn effective communication skills in addition to argumentation and research skills. If you are talking so fast that communication is lost then you have done the event a disservice. If I can’t hear it I can’t flow it. Just having more evidence doesn’t mean that you have won the round. Impact analysis is imperative to any case. DON'T SPREAD!!!

Being professional in the round will earn you higher speaking points. Yelling or being disrespectful will result in low speaks.

LD: I am okay with K's and counterplans.

Please make sure that all you have evidence you use in the round. If your opponent asks for it please provide it promptly. I will only ask to see it if there is an issue raised.

L.D. Debate Paradigm: 

• General: Do as much work you can do to write the ballot for me (aside from signing it J). Be comparative! Give me analysis as to why I should look to “X” argument, before “Y” argument. Also, weigh your arguments for me; as I will not do any work for you. I will not flow blippy un-warranted spikes. DO NOT PREF. ME IF YOU ARE A THEORY DEBATER. I do not like to see theory debates.

• Speed: My flowing abilities are relatively okay. But, my ability to comprehend speed is not so. Accordingly, if I am judging you, it would be in your best interest to speak at a brisk conversational speed (200-240ish wpm). If I do not understand you I will yell clear/slow/loud a maximum of 5 times (most likely 3, however). Your speaks will suffer the more times I have to say one of the listed terms. Additionally, if I do not flow an argument (probably because I had no idea what you were saying) I will not count it in the round.

• Extensions: Need to have a clear articulation for claim, warrant, and impact.

• Critical Arguments: If you choose to run them, do not assume I will understand them. Give me a clear implications of what the argument means for the round, and how that should influence my adjudication of the round.

• Speaks: Speaks are reflective of how well I think you performed in a round. Generally, my speaks are pretty nice (Avg. 27-28).

I competed in PF and congress through high school, and I'd like to see a well-weighed round with some hefty framework debate. Throwing around a ton of arguments in the hopes that a few things stick won't cut it; explain what's important and why I should care about it. I'll vote based on the frameworks discussed in the debate.

I did Public Forum Debate for four years (2014-2018) at Nueva, and am now entering my sophomore year at Johns Hopkins.

Terminalization: Please make sure that you are terminalizing your impacts. "Higher/lower debt," "more/less economic growth," and "Chinese hegemony" are not terminalized impacts. Explain how and why your impacts matter.

Weighing: The most important thing you can do in a round in my opinion is weigh. I appreciate weighing as early as rebuttal, on both the link and impact levels, but at the very least you should be weighing in the final focus.

Extensions: Second rebuttal does not need to cover first rebuttal, however it is frequently strategic and I would especially appreciate responding to turns that were put on your case. First summary does not need to extend defense that was not responded to in second rebuttal. Offensive voters should be in summary and final focus for both teams. Extensions need to involve extending the argument/warrant, not just the author name.

Crossfire: I pay attention to but do not flow crossfire, meaning that arguments need to be made during your speech time. Crossfire is a time to ask your opponents questions, not to make a speech. I don't care if you're looking at me during crossfire.

Tech vs. Truth: I try to be tech over truth as much as possible aside from arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted, so I will flow and evaluate false arguments. Just know that you're lowering the bar for your opponents' responses and you should make sure to explain your argument extra clearly because I may assume I'm misunderstanding your argument if I know it's not true.

Presumption: I try to avoid voting on presumption, so even in rounds where presuming would be a reasonable decision, I'll look very hard for some risk of offense to vote on. However, I'd really rather not have to adjudicate rounds like that, so please make and extend offensive arguments and respond to defense.

General: Signpost. Don't be rude to your opponents. Don't misconstrue evidence. Don't feel obliged to shake my hand.

RFD: In general I think we should be looking to improve the educational value of debate, and I consider rounds to be much more educational when the debaters understand the judge's decision. To that end, I'll try to give an RFD whenever I can, and I strongly encourage you to ask me any questions you have.

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

Currently an English teacher though i have never judged debate before, so I am a lay judge. But as an English teacher and a philosophy major in college I am well versed in argumentation. I value clarity in speaking as I am a little hard of hearing. The arguments I find most convincing are built and compounded on. By that I mean an argument that relies on previous statements you have made to build a bigger and more salient point. The opposite of that would be five or ten different statements that stand in complete solidarity from one another and do not connect to each other in any meaningful or impactful way.

In opposing or counter arguing i value teams that attack the big picture and do not just focus in on one little mistake. While those mistakes can and should be called out a great counter argument looks at the bigger picture and shows why the opposing side holds opinions that, are at their very core, illogical and/or inconsistent in important ways.

First things first, I am a parent judge. That does not, however, mean that I am an incompetent judge, but it will mean that you will want to avoid cutting corners with clarity and explanation if you want your points to hit home with me. I have two years of judging experience in debate, and have judged LD, PF, and Congress, so I am familiar with the characteristics of these different events. I always flow the round, however I am not an expert at flowing, especially speed, so at the end of the day the ballot will go to the team who truly convinced me, not the one with the most points on the flow. That being said, the flow is the main tool I use to guide my decision, especially in tight rounds.

More specifics:

1. Courtesy: I expect a respectful, professional* debate. I have a zero tolerance policy for any kind of bullying or discriminatory behavior (ex: purposefully misgendering an opponent, etc.) that makes the debate space unsafe for it's participants.

*I won't drop debaters based on rudeness if they are running something performative, or based on dress. I am referring to the manner in which you interact with your opponent and your judge.

2. Progressive Arguments: As I said before, I am a parent judge. I am open-minded to any strategy or type of argument you want to run, but I most likely will not be familiar with more progressive strategies. If you are running progressive arguments or strategies, be sure to explain what the intent of the argument is and why I should vote for it. I am smart enough to understand these strategies if you take the brief time to introduce me to it. I understand topical Ks, Plans and Counterplans, and theory. If you're running anything beyond that, you may want to help me understand what it is your doing and it's purpose.

3. Speed: I can't flow speed, however I understand that at some tournaments it is the norm. If you are going to spread, I need to be able to view your case in order to flow it, whether that be done through speech drop or an email chain etc. Anything that I can't read, nor can I understand and keep up with won't be flowed, most likely won't be processed, and will essentially go to waste when it is time for me to decide who has won.

4. Theory: I won't weigh frivolous theory. This means if I don't believe that the theory argument is addressing something within the debate that seriously harms the nature of the debate space, it is not going to help you in a round that I am judging. To me, theory should be reserved for instances in which A) a debater is way out of line in their conduct, or B) standards of fairness come into questions (topicality, switch-side debate, time skew). Voting on theory for me is rare, the harm would have to be something big, but if you convince me that something that is happening is bad for debate and that my ballot should not encourage that behavior I will weigh your theory argument.

I coach Extemp and Congress at Bellarmine and also have experience with Policy and Original Advocacy.

If I am your judge in an Interp round: I'm sorry. I don't know much about the events and honestly, much of the way I judge simply has to do with whether I am interested in the story you are telling. I am not good at evaluating blocking and so forth. It does seem to me that having multiple characters adds a degree of difficulty, so that tends to go a long way with me.

For INFO/Expos: I really want to LEARN something from your speech. You might have kind of a run-of-the-mill topic with lovely VA's and dynamic delivery, but if the content is pretty bland and I am not learning anything, then I will rank you low. I tend not to get too snowed by nice VA's. Some kids come from more money than others and if a student has a really original idea with strong research behind it, I don't want to penalize them for not having the money or access to a program that can help them get great VA's. I will say, though, that you really should not have a speech of nothing but content. That is HARD to sit through for 10 minutes. Aim to inject some humor or levity where you can.

When it comes to things like Oratory and Advocacy, I like to see RESEARCH and EVIDENCE. Your OO or OA should not be like a DI or HI. I am interested in your reasoning and analysis. Please don't try to cover for lack of empirics and analytical rigor by resorting to excessive pathos.

The event with which I have the most experience is Extemp. I love Extemp. However, I deplore the manner in which final rounds of Extemp at Nats have devolved into stand-up comedy routines. I find that more and more students say very little, they just say it in a very entertaining way. Extemp is an event where you should have an argument, you should have evidence, you should rely upon a range of sources. Students should have a sophisticated argument based upon multiple sources (1 per point...um, no) that are accurately cited. Don't say that the Washington Post had an article on something. Tell me WHEN it had the article. In addition, I am quite pleased to see students stretch beyond standard sources like the NYT, WSJ, Economist, etc. When you show me that you are relying upon sources beyond those that everyone uses, I think that reflects well upon you. Bear in mind: the topics you are speaking about are by and large serious. So students who are smarmy and pleased with themselves and their puns really rub me the wrong way. Finally, I fundamentally reject the movement to enable competitors to bring a notecard or the outline into the room with them to rely upon when delivering. This a tough event. It has many moving parts. The best extempers can handle all of them, including memorization, well. I will in all likelihood not rank you in the top half of the room if you are using a notecard or your outline.

If I am judging you in Policy debate, you should know that I rarely vote on T. I don't mind a good K, but you need to understand the author. If you are just reading cards that your coach cut for you, the round is not terribly interesting because you don't understand what you are talking about. I can handle medium speed, largely because I find spreading to be really unpleasant to listen to. Plus, if debate is an academic activity, then I am not sure what the value of talking crazy fast is. Please, please, please: do not make me listen to multiple speeches about whether or not the round is educational. That is my nightmare. You have a resolution, you have a topic. ENGAGE WITH IT. But when you dance around with T too much or go nuts about the round not being educational, I truly feel like my time is being wasted. Also, I get that there is often the incentive to go to extinction and nuclear holocaust, etc. But I encourage you to consider whether that always makes any sense. Sometimes debaters go from zero to extinction so quickly as to be farcical. I don't mind CP, framework or generic DA's, not a big fan of conditionality. If I think of anything else, I'll add to this. Basically, I want to see the students wrestle with ideas and do so in a mature, polite manner. Finally, if you and your partner are clearly crushing the other team, there is no need to be arrogant about it. I have no problem with low point wins if you are incapable of showing respect.

Former High School Policy Debater (before PF even existed) in Wisconsin and on National Circuit. Assistant Coach at STRIVE Prep - RISE in Denver, CO. Former coach of DSST: Cole High School in Denver, CO.

PF Specific Updates:

Read Evidence Call me old-school, but I'd like to hear you actually read evidence. I'm really not enjoying the paraphrased tag-line strategy that supposedly brings in the entire card of evidence and warrants without reading the actual warrants in the round. Some teams are "reading" more cards than a policy debate round would, but it is really just citing a bibliography with tags. Furthermore, this then can become a bunch of overtagged claims linked together to some extremely illogical argument that isn't supported by the literature. So, read more evidence. This would also make the rounds so much better because we could go more in depth rather than breadth and actual get to the warrants and clash between arguments.

Summary Speech I do think that summary speeches should be "summarizing" the round down and include all the arguments you plan on going for in the final focus. If you don't argue everything in summary then the round can get very messy with new story-lines/cards reappearing in the final focus speech from way back in the rebuttals but hadn't been talked about since, which seems borderline abusive but definitely makes the weighing and story of the round more confusing. Therefore, if your partner didn't talk about it in Summary I won't listen to your argument in Final Focus.

Overarching thoughts for both PF and Policy:

• Evidence: I am evidence-focused and will ask for evidence if it is up for Debate (in both PF and Policy).
• Warrants/Analysis/Links: The lost art of debate from what I've seen at a lot of local tournaments this year - please explain the warrants, analysis, and links/internal links of your arguments to be strong. If you do not adequately do this, don't be surprised by a decision that you might not agree with as I should not be doing any work on my end to make connections - that is your job to prove it to me.
• Clash: The most successful debaters in front of me will clearly clash with their opponents arguments in the line-by-line and explain why those arguments are flawed or not as good as your counter-analytics/evidence.
• Speed: I can handle speed (as long as your speed is clear), but for the fastest teams will require some slight slowing on tags/authors and analytics/non-evidence based arguments (for example when reading your Aff Plan Details or arguing Topicality) so I can adequately capture everything. If during the round it becomes clear you are a lot faster than the other team, please do not continuing spreading to the point of being mean or your speaks will drop. (Also, for PF when you aren't actually reading evidence even slow speed can be hard for me to flow because I just can't keep up flowing a million tag lines.)
• Flow/Drops: I am a flow judge, and do take dropped arguments seriously. However, I also much prefer argumentation and analysis than a ticky-tack debate about who dropped what. Furthermore, if all you say is "they dropped it, so it flows for us" - I will not give it much weight as you need to explain the importance of the argument and how it matters in the round for me to care about it otherwise you effectively dropped it as well by not explaining it. Also, for PF teams that don't talk about a particular contention after their constructive until the Final Focus and then say "our opponents dropped our contention, so we should win on that" I will not take that seriously as you also effectively dropped it throughout the round.
• Social Etiquette: Do not be bigoted or racist in anyway despite the fact our country seems to currently be okay with that - this is the only time you would ever see judge intervention from me.

Policy Specific Paradigm:

• Policy Maker: I would consider myself a policy-maker that evaluates the impacts of the round for Aff vs Neg. Therefore, 2NR and 2AR would do well to frame the round in term of impact analysis and explain why their impacts are the most critical to be solved - this can be argued and justified in many ways, so convince me.
• Like Well-Argued Kritiks/Critiques: I really enjoy Kritik/Critique arguments. However, most teams do not do them super well as they are deeply philosophical arguments that are often very nuanced. If you argue that fiat is illusory (this is not required, and I actually appreciate the kritiks that have real policy impacts more as they are often more believable and interesting in the debate), you better not link harder to the Kritik in your on-case arguments than your opponent. Also, if fiat is illusory, I do want to hear convincing arguments for your alternative and how voting for you actually achieves this alternative goal (and why the Aff can't just perm it and talk/acknowledge the problems in the pre-fiat world but still debate a hypothetical post-fiat policy world). Also as a recommendation, if you are truly going for a Kritik, you should spend substantial time dedicated to it from both evidence and analytic standpoints as they are complicated topics that should be in some ways outside the "game" of debate.
• Limit Topicality/Theory Arguments: While I will vote on topicality/theory arguments if forced to, I do not enjoy them in any way. I understand running T is a negative strategy as a time suck, so I am okay with one or two T arguments and won't hold it against you, but I hope the round doesn't come to Topicality and the quicker they get punted the better. For someone to win on topicality/theory it will have to be largely dropped or actually show very real abuse (with open-evidence project and familiarity of cases/topics, I have a hard time believing there is very much actual abuse that is happening though, so it better be convincing and don't be surprised if I give leeway to reasonable arguments from the other team.)

Bio:

Hello! I am currently a freshman at The Pennsylvania State University in State College, Pennsylvania, and I’m majoring in Nursing with a minor in Health Care Policy and Administration. I am a member of the Student Nurses Association of Penn State University and a member of the Legislative Committee within this chapter. This past year I had on a piece of legislation I co-authored passed at the state level and will be attending Nationals to try and have it passed nationally. I attended Palo Verde High School in Las Vegas, Nevada and did three years of speech and debate while there. My two main events were Congress and Expository, but I have experience with other events as well.

Individual/Speech Events:

Passion goes a long way for me and showing that you want to be there through your performance. I am not easily offended, and with that being said I appreciate some humor but in a mature manner. Originality is important to me or putting a twist on something old works as well. The floor is yours, and I want to see that you’re confident and that you know what you are performing, informing, or persuading very well.

Have your speech/performance be clear and audible with an easy to follow argument/topic/performance. Try not to be all over the place or needlessly rambling on for the sake of time. With all of that, enjoy yourself and have a good time!

Lay Judge.

Please speak slowly and make your arguments clear. I have judged at a few tournaments and do not enjoy debaters who speak fast and use a lot of evidence to respond to their opponents. It makes the experience not as enjoyable.

Please make sure to repeat the things that you think are most important so that I am sure to get it in my notes. I am more of a listener and tend to use my facial expressions and other gestures to signal to the debates that I am following along and understand their arguments.

Be professional and polite. I usually give pretty high speaker points to all debaters especially if both teams are friendly and well prepared for the debate.

Lastly, you don't have to shake my hand after the round. I only disclose my decision to the debaters when the tournament requires that the judge does so.

IE Speech:

Speak clearly. I enjoy creativity in delivery of speeches.

PF & LD:

Speak clearly, and coherently. Avoid spreading too fast, if I do not understand, I will stop flowing.

Speed

If you're clear, I can flow speed. If you actually can't understand your opponents I'm fine with you yelling "clear" so they will slow down, but don't say that and then like go faster than them. If your opponents yell "clear," slow down.

Evidence

Please provide author and year of publication.

I will mark you down for misrepresenting evidence, please avoid any distortion.

I sometimes may have a hard time following you if you paraphrase evidence, so be careful.

Clipping

I may not always catch this, but please avoid clipping.

Prep Time

If opponent requests a card, prep time will be taken once card is received.

As Always:

Be polite and courteous during debate.

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

Hi – Update as of 2024: I have been judging for now 9+ years. Cara Wilson of Westridge here writing her mom’s paradigm. She has been judging for 9+ years now, and is a good note taker. That being said, she is by no means a flow judge but she will notice if you bring up new points in final or blatantly lie. She likes interactive frontlines, so not just extending your own point over and over again – don’t be two ships passing in the night. She likes it when you weigh impacts clearly. Please be nice to one another she hates aggression and debaters being disrespected. Please, please, please if you want any chance at picking up her ballot speak slowly. You can still do your fancy jargon – she knows that turn and nonunique means, but she just needs time to write it all down. I’m trying to teach her to flow y’all, don’t just assume she doesn’t know anything. In one sentence: be nice, be clear, be interactive/comparative, be persuasive, and be slow.

Have a good round y’all.

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

I have been either competing, coaching, & judging for 20 years. My coaching expertise is primarily in Congress, Original Oratory, & Informative Speaking, though I have experience with any/all events. I am a coach at Flintridge Preparatory & The Westridge School, and Curriculum Director of OO/Info at the Institute for Speech & Debate (ISD). I believe that the Speech & Debate events are far more complementary than we acknowledge, & that they’re all working toward the same pedagogical goals. Because debate is constantly changing, I value versatility & a willingness to adapt.

PF: I'd rather not need to read any docs/evidence in order to decide how I'm voting, but if it comes down to that, I will (begrudgingly) scrutinize your evidence. Feel free to run any experimental/non-traditional arguments you want, but please make these decisions IN GOOD FAITH. Don't shoehorn theory in where it doesn't apply & don't run it manipulatively. I am admittedly not techy-tech girl, but I am always listening comprehensively & flowing.

In Congress rounds, I judge based on a competitor’s skill in the following areas: argumentation, ethicality, presentation, & participation.

Argumentation: Your line of reasoning should be clear & concise; in your speeches & your CX, you should answer the questions at hand. Don’t sacrifice clarity for extra content – there should be no confusion regarding why the bill / resolution results in what you’re saying. You can make links without evidence, but they must be logically or empirically sound.

Ethicality: Evidence is borrowed credibility; borrow honestly. A source should necessarily include its date & the publication in which it appeared, & should not be fabricated. No evidence is better than falsified evidence. Additionally, competitors should remember that although you may not be debating real legislation, the issues at hand are very real, as are the people they affect. An ethical debater does not exploit real world tragedy, death, or disaster in order to “win” rounds.

Presentation: Congressional Debate is the best blend of speech skills & debate ability; what you say is just as important as how you say it. The best speakers will maintain a balance of pathos, ethos, & logos in both their content & delivery style. Rhetoric is useful, but only if its delivery feels authentic & purposeful.

Participation: Tracking precedence & recency is a good way to participate – it helps keep the PO accountable, & demonstrates your knowledge of Parliamentary Procedure. Questioning is an integral part of Congress; I like thoughtful, incisive questioning that doesn’t become adversarial or malicious. Both your questions & your answers should be pertinent & succinct. Above all, I am a big fan of competitors who are as invested in making the chamber better as they are in bettering their own ranks. The round can only be as engaging, lively, and competitive as you make it - pettiness brings everyone down.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.

Hi, I am a first time judge and still very new to speech and debate. I don't really have a paradigm for speech, but I will write one for debate in the case that I have to judge it.

PF:

Please be clear in your speeches. English was not my first language, so it be hard for me to keep track of all of your arguments and evidence if you speak too fast. Tell me the resolution beforehand because I cannot guarantee that I will know it and be able to follow your side. I am not a judge who flows, unfortunately, so be sure to emphasize and extend the most important arguments and turns (including tagline, evidence, and warrant) that are the most central to the debate. I will go with the most convincing side. Try to avoid the progressive stuff (ie. Ks, theory, plans, counterplans). Be courteous and polite to each other throughout the round and, most importantly, have fun! And before you ask, no, I do not disclose.

LD:

Basically, read the PF paradigm. Clear and steady speaking is preferred. Read me the resolution beforehand. Stick to traditional debate. Again, I am not a flowing judge, so be convincing and go for the essential, overarching arguments. Don't expect disclosure.