My paradigm is based mainly on impact. I want to see what the Competors pull through at the end of the round, and most importantly that they apply good analysis of the topic in general. All that means that you need to clash with your opponent’s arguments and show me why yours are more important or relevant to the debate, and why they matter.

Debate isn’t about burying your opponents in contentions, it’s about good use of arguments and rhetoric. Of course, I also believe decorum is important, and that the competitors are respectful to each other.

Current head coach at Homewood-Flossmoor High School since 2014.

Previous Policy debater (Not about that life anymore though...)

If you start an email/doc chain - kcole@hf233.org

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

When it comes to LD, I am 100% more traditional even though I've spent time in policy. I don't believe there should be plans or disads. LD should be about negating or affirming the res, not plan creation. You should have a value and value criterion that is used to evaluate the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

Traditional PF judge here. I dont want to see plans or disads. Affirm or negate the res.

Card Calling ----- If someone calls for your cards, you better have it very quick. I'm not sitting around all day for you to locate cards you should have linked or printed out in your case. If it gets excessive you'll be using prep for it. Same for obsessively calling for cards --- you best be calling them because you actually need to see them instead of starting card wars.

IN GENERAL

I'm not into disclosure so don't try and run some pro disclosure theory because I won't vote on it unless it's actually dropped and even then I probably wont vote on it.

I'm not going to fight to understand what you're saying. If you are unclear you will likely lose. I also feel like I shouldn't have to follow along on a speech doc to hear what your saying. Fast is fine, but it should be flowable without reading the docs. Otherwise....what's the point in reading it at all.

BE CLEAR - I'll tell you if I cannot understand you. I might even say it twice but after that I'll probably just stop flowing until I can understand you again. Once again -- Fast is fine as long as you are CLEAR

I am an advocate of resolution specific debate. We have a resolution for a reason. I don't believe running arguments that stay the same year after year is educational. I do, however, think that in round specific abuse is a thing and can be voted on.

K's- Most of the common K's are fine by me. I am not well read in K literature. I will not pretend to understand it. If you fail to explain it well enough for me and at the end of the debate I don't understand it, I will not vote for it. I will likely tell you it's because I don't understand. I will not feel bad about it.

Be a good person. I'm not going to tolerate people being rude, laughing at opponents, or making offensive comments.

Head Coach of speech and debate team for 11 years.

I am a former college LD'er and also really enjoyed speech doing Extemp in high school and college.

LD Paradigm
My paradigm reflects a somewhat older traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention clash and strong crystallization. I am not impressed with debate lingo being thrown about and expected to finish the argument for you. Make it simple and argue on the framework and contentions.
Do not spread. I need to hear and flow your arguments in order to score. If I can't understand you, then I can't score you. Do not heavily rely on esoteric counterplans or kritques. Please do not do theory unless its absolutely required.

Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of the debate and make sure I can follow you. Sign posting is your friend and mine.

PF Paradigm

All that applies in LD applies here as well except I dislike partner imbalance in grand cross and counter coverage in later speeches. I believe PF should also be even MORE open to anyone to judge so less reliant on debate lingo to summarily dismiss opposition argumentation.

Congress Paradigm
Congress is the perfect combination of extemp speech and debate. I pay attention very closely during cross. First speeches are high risk and high reward. If you are giving the first pro or con speech it's basically an oratory and should be delivered as such. Later speeches should crystallize if extending the debate and counter often or taking a new angle and approach. Not that into chamber games, but at the national level I am ok with it.

TL;DR for all- directly CLASH with your opponent and make it easy for me to flow and understand you.

As your performance, preparedness, and effort on your debate is valued and admired, I do prefer quality vs quantity. This helps me consider all important points in order to make the best decision. Speed is not favorable for me.

If your side is con, facts or showing cards demonstrating why I should decide for con is important to convince.

Public Forum

Name: Sarah Greenswag

School Affiliation: Libertyville High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: 10

some tips for success in-round:

-assume i have no previous knowledge of topic, tabula rasa but please no bigoted arguments

- keep time

- comparative weighing: tell me why I should prefer your args over theirs. use weighing mechanisms (magnitude, timeframe, etc)

- rhetoric/truth can be impactful when used to strengthen existing cards and impacts, just make sure you thoroughly explain why it's substantial

- signposting: mention which contention or argument you're on when talking about it

- i don't flow cx but i will be listening: if you have a point, make sure you bring up in your next speech

- identify clash points and address them

- have links and impacts: explain how you get to your impacts, strength of link >>> big impacts, but if you have both go for it

DO NOT SPREAD!!! Include refutation within your rebuttal speeches and all following speeches. I LOVE to see clash within a debate round and I believe it adds more to the debate then what is just written down in notes. Introduce Voter Issues in your Summary speech, but if the debate is going well you can introduce your Voter Issues in your Final Focus. Have fun!!

1. I judge by the flow.

2. I look heavily at impact weighing in the round.

3. Rudeness in the round will not result in a loss of the round but a heavy loss of speaker points.

4. If evidence is heavily contested without clarity I will take a look at it myself to resolve inconsistencies, if it is critical to      the round. 

5. I do not flow crossfire points unless brought up in the following speech. 

I was a varsity policy debater in high school and am an experienced parent judge. I have judged over 40 varsity public forum rounds including the 2019 IHSA State Debate Championship and the 2019 National Speech and Debate Tournament. A few paradigms:

- I am a flow judge. I expect that debaters will extend evidence properly throughout the round. Any new evidence introduced in Final Focus will be disregarded.

- I am fine with speed. However, if I cannot understand your speech, I will not flow it. If you spread, you will lose!

- I will not flow Crossfire, but many rounds are won or lost here. If you have "won" in Crossfire, mention it in a later speech and it will be noted.

- I strongly encourage all debaters to weigh their impacts towards the end of the round. Success here will likely win you my ballot.

Best of luck!

Overall: I highly value calling out contention taglines explicitly, but succinctly.

PF: I am a relatively standard Varsity flow judge, but I'm also an activist judge. I'll be doing my own weighing/analysis during the round (without prior bias and in consideration of the information presented to me in the round, of course), especially if the round has poor weighing.

I won't dock speaking points based on minutiae (such as speaking speed or where you look in the round), but just make sure to keep your presentation reasonable based on standard PF guidelines.

I will, however, dock points if you're overly aggressive/arrogant/rude.

For Summary and FF I want to see a clear extension of any important cards/arguments/attacks/whatever and clear impactful taglines for voting issues, as those are the main speeches I'm voting off of. I also like it when debaters number their attacks clearly in the rebuttal.

Background:

Four year former debater in LD, PF, and Congress

First year judge

LD/PF Paradigm

I can flow and keep up with quicker argumentation, but please keep pacing to an appropriate level in order to enable myself and the opposition the ability to flow.

I enjoy and encourage debate on all levels, including framework, and would love to see how your arguments win in both frameworks, or why your opponent's framework should not be considered in the round.

I will evaluate each argument regardless of my personal thoughts/beliefs of the topic, so utilize time in the round to draw attention on which points hold more weight. In an ideal round, I will be told what is most important and why I should use that as a point to vote on, or why it should be disregarded.

I will also only flow during the speeches, so if there is a particularly important point brought up during the CX period, please draw attention to it during the round.

When presenting me with voting issues, and contentions that you think you have won, I should be able to find that on my flow. On a similar topic, don't attempt to revive dropped arguments in the final speech if you didn't address them outside of your opening one, try to extend them throughout the course of the debate.

I distribute speaker points based on the content of your arguments and your ability to analyze the points brought up during the debate, and not as much based on your speaking style.

Debate is meant to be an educational and fun experience, and I have absolutely zero tolerance for any sexist, racist, homophobic, or any other discriminatory arguments/comments presented during the round. If any of this occurs during the round, you will receive lowest points possible, automatically lose the round, and the issue will be brought up to the appropriate staff on site.

I will provide light feedback post-round, but if you want more in-depth feedback, I am willing to share in-between rounds!

Hi debaters!

I am in varsity public forum debate and have been debating for four years now, when judging debates speaking wise I would vote favorably upon a clear loud voice and good eye contact (don't look constantly down at your papers/laptop) as well as an organized speech. I don't flow through crossfire so if you have any points you would like to address from crossfire bring them up in rebuttal or summary speeches. I would like to see effective crossfires and a lot of clash, overall a polite debate as well, as soon as I see lots of aggression I will not hesitate to take speaker points off.

-Josie :)

Name: Karla Nunez

School Affiliation: Palatine High School

Number of years judging the event you are registered in: Public Forum Since Fall of 2016 - approx. 7 years | Lincoln-Douglass since Fall 2019 - approx. 4 years

⟨⟨ Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: ⟩⟩

Before answering these questions I'd like to express that normally when asked if i have a Paradigm I'd answer along the lines of "I trust that you know what you are doing, so give me what you've got and I'll do my best to fill you in on what you need to improve". I other words, You, your coach, and teammates are expected to work together to ensure you've got what it takes to win the round, and I ensure that i asses and provide you with tools that can help you improve and succeed in the future. If you take anything away from this is that I'd like for you to GIVE ME WHAT YOU GOT! I want you to show me what 100% of you looks like in that moment. and just trust that your 100% now will change with time and effort.

Speed of delivery- During your constructive any speed as long as you are clear and enunciate properly. If it were a range of 1-5, (1 being slow with heavy pauses and 5 being the fastest ever I could call you McQueen and exclaim "Ka-Chow!") I find students do best at about a 3-4, I would be more concerned with your opponent’s preference.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)- If your opponent said something that changes the game then address that, but i like big picture stuff.

Extension of arguments into later speeches- ?????

Flowing/note-taking- You should definitely be flowing 1000000%, and I'll flow your speeches as much as possible, I'll lend an ear to cross incase any of my questions are answered, but none of it will flow through.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? ?????

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I believe that if you state "I win on so and so because my opponent is just wrong", you have plenty of work to do.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? makes sense to me.

I was a policy debater in high school and also debated at the college level. I am currently a trial attorney and managing partner of my own firm, but also the head coach of Urbana High School.

I vote strictly by the flow and heavily weigh any arguments that are dropped as long as it's extended by the SS and FF. I do not consider "generic" framework arguments such as cost/benefit, who will save more lives, etc. so do not waste precious rebuttal time making those as main voting issues. Also, simply restating your constructive contentions is not an effective "main voter" issue, rather focus on where the main clashes are in the round and why it should be favorably weighed. I also weigh actual turns of contentions and arguments if they are done effectively.

Speed is totally fine. I can flow spread if done clearly but needs to be well organized. In other words, let me know where to specifically link your arguments to on the flow. Therefore, use speed to your advantage.

I do not need a road map unless you are going outside of the norm. Please do not call for every piece of evidence unless you are really questioning the source or context of the card. Also, I do not note the source, but only the content during the round, so please DO NOT just refer to a card in rebuttal, SS or FF by simply stating the source. You will need to state the content the card in your argument.

Please avoid debate jargon and stick with weighing/impacting to carry a round.

The 2nd speaking team should cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal. Otherwise I will consider the arguments dropped. Its up to the first speaking team to point this out and extend in the summary.

• Please speak slowly and clearly enough so I may understand you.

• If you're using your own timer, please turn off the alarm sounds, so as not to distract your opponent.

Greetings,

I have been a PF/LD Coach/Judge for a year now with New Trier Township High School in Winnetka, IL. I have worked at the local tournaments in Illinois as well as the Illinois State Tournament and Berkeley University Tournament.

It has been my pleasure to serve our students and the National Debate organization as a judge.

My paradigms include clarity in presentation, steady flow as the students present their case, teamwork, respect for other debaters as they present while waiting to present their case. I appreciate when the debaters are prepared before entering the room with their debate questions, discussions, and 'unexpected' remarks from the opposing team. I also appreciate the debaters respectfully acknowledging judges in the room and monitoring their turn to speak/present.

It is my pleasure to serve and I enjoy an enthusiastic comprehensive debate.

- Alicia L. Ross, MA

Experience: I have 3 years of debate experience as a coach/judge in Public Forum (1 year as an assistant and 1 year as a head coach). I have experience coaching/judging Congressional, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas Debate.

Organization: I expect clear organization throughout the debate. You present a clear argument using contentions, subpoints, and off-time road maps. Voters issues should be included in the Final Focus. Please be as clear and concise as possible so that I do not have to guess what your points/arguments are.

Evidence: I value the use of evidence within your arguments. You should include clear and thorough citations, which include an author, source, and year. Current sources (within the last 1-2 years) provide stronger citations, unless you are making a historical argument that would benefit from primary documents. Make sure to explain your evidence thoroughly through your impacts.

Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponents during Crossfire. Be courteous to your opponent. Being rude to another team will result in a deduction of points. Crossfire is a time to ask clarifying questions. Make sure to ask questions to your opponents, and do not just make statements back-and-forth. Argumentation and rebuttal should be saved for the debate rounds, NOT during the Crossfire round.

Speaker Points: Speaker points will be based on your overall delivery. This includes the pace of your speech, volume, eye contact, and tone. Make sure to use all of the time given to you for the round. You should also be courteous to your fellow debaters, and not demonstrate any demeaning behavior (i.e. rolling your eyes, talking to your partner during rounds, laughing, being disruptive when someone is speaking, having a rude tone). Generally, just be as polished and professional as possible.

Contact: gdgus0815@gmail.com

Background:

4 year debater in PF and Congress - National/State/Local circuits. However, I have experience judging LD.

First year judge - judged sometimes in high school

LD/PF Paradigm:

• I am fine with speed but at the same time don't use it to push your opponents out of the round and I don't feel that spreading is necessary.
• I am a flow judge so if you win the flow, you will win the round.
• Be sure to interact with all arguments, I will weigh all arguments equally unless a competitor tells me otherwise. If there is still an argument on my flow at the end of a round that your opponent hasn't interacted with and you have flowed through, it will factor into my decision. Additionally, avoid bringing up previously dropped arguments in your final round, if you want to use it be sure to flow it through the debate.
• I appreciate narrowing the scope of debate later in the round - prioritizing arguments that are winning/important in the debate. Try not to go for all arguments presented.
• I won't flow cx, if there is something important be sure to bring it up in a speech.
• I judge on both arguments and impacts so please make sure that arguments in final speeches have their impacts discussed or it will resonate less with me.
• I enjoy framework debate, but don't let it be the only thing discussed.
• Finally on a personal note, I strongly believe debate is meant to be a fun and educational experience. I believe is it extremely important to discuss real world topics and I will not factor my own opinions on topics into decisions. With that being said I have zero tolerance for disrespect to me or your opponents. I have seen sexism, racism, and discrimination in debate and will not be tolerating it in the round.
• As a previous debater I want to help everyone to get as much out of this activity as I did :) So feel free to ask for feedback/come up to me after rounds.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

I judge based on the flow. Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

Hi debaters!

I have been debating for the past 4 years (3 years as a varsity member) in PF. In your rounds, I expect that both sides are well-versed in the topic and adhere to the resolution. I will only vote under your framework if you carry it throughout the round, and successfully defend it if attacked. Remember that cross-fire is not flowed, so if there are any important points that you need me to flow, then mention it in your speeches. I am a flow judge, so I will be looking at if you carry your arguments throughout the round. I really really appreciate organization in all of your speeches. Impact analysis is the most important aspect of the round for me! Tell me why I should vote for you! Finally, I expect both sides to be respectful to each other. I will take away speaker points if you are rude to your opponents! Good luck! :)

- Kaitlin