Take a breath, be courteous, have fun.

Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun. 

Experience

I am a head coach and a former assistant coach with three prior years of coaching and judging experience focused in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum Debate. I am also a high school English teacher. My educational background is in Political Science, History, Communication, and Education.

Rate of Delivery (Speed)

I prefer a typical conversational speed, but rate of delivery is not a primary factor in my decision. I believe a reasonable speed allows for a more a more quality debate. In other words, I am more concerned about what you say than how much you say. It is your burden to make sure your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument then you did not make it.

Lincoln Douglas Paradigms

I feel that value and criterion are key elements of the case, and these are a major factor in my evaluation. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and a bullet-point analysis of your case. I also prefer to hear voting issues as you move down the flow. The use of evidence is somewhat necessary, but I will look more at how you use that evidence to prove your point. If you offer a piece of evidence without explaining how it ties back to your key arguments, it will have little significance to me. I write down key arguments and some detailed notes throughout the round. When making a final decision, I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round, as well as who persuaded me more of his / her position overall.

Here are some basic notes :)

When speaking, please make sure to enunciate! I would like to hear your arguments and make sure to make the logical connection.

SPEED-

I have difficulty processing the information when you spread so please speak clearly and don't assume anything!

CX-

Leave space for your opponent to answer your questions! I don’t appreciate it when debaters are condescending, rude, or mean. Another basic rule, this should be self explanatory, please don’t be sexist, homophobic, racist etc.

I did debate all three years of high school, specifically, PF for 2 1/2 years and extemp for the other half. Which means the most important thing to me is evidence! I don't care how outlandish your arguments are as long as you can 1. support them 2. successfully link them.

I will judge specifically via flowing, so please bring up specific contention numbers or titles when making an argument.

I will not judge cross, if you want anything that happened during cross to be in the ballot please refer to it in your arguments because then I will see it as important. But if someone asks for cards I will make sure you trade them at the end of your cross.

Please be civil in your arguments, don't be a jerk or I will dock your speaks and lean more towards your opposition. I want this to be fun for everyone involved and having a mean opponent is not tolerable.

Please don't be afraid to talk to me like a person, make jokes and be kind and confident, I'm just as human as you are. :)

explain. please :)

I am a recent high school graduate and mainly did Policy Debate all four years of high school.

Specific criteria that will help you win the debate:

Signpost as you move through the speech.

Be clear in telling me what I should be voting on. I only vote on what is said in the debate, I don’t make inferences or links, so it’s up to you to make all parts of the argument so that it’s on the flow.

I vote on what’s on the flow, so help me keep my flow organized by making clear references.

State a clear impact analysis and be specific on why you outweigh

I do not vote on cross-examination

Speed is fine but I need clarity and signposting

All your arguments need clear warrants

I may ask for evidence if it becomes a central issue in the debate

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.

Congratulations on making it to my paradigm, this is the first step to a great round!

TL,DR for those who ain't got time for that: I'm experienced in debate as a coach and competitor. I'm not the best with speed and if you wanna go quick give me the speech docs please. Give me some decent framing/weighing beyond surface level. Depth over breadth in general. I am cool with K's and all that jazz. Be ethical.

Do not feel afraid to ask me what something is or what I mean by something. Read the intro, how I vote, and your specific section of debate is my recommendation.

Intro:

I coached mostly PF and LD for 4 years total and I have competed for even longer, placing in college nationals and plenty of tournaments. I have a bachelor's in political science and a minor in philosophy and I listen/read sci-fi and philosophy in my free time (amongst other things). So I am an experienced judge and debater with high academic literacy.

I tend to want to keep a face of impartiality while judging, I try not to go beyond a flat expression when possible. Let me know if you don't prefer this, I can certainly try to be more expressive in what arguments I like versus don't to help y'all out.

How I vote:

Depth over breadth in general.

I try to be as tab ras as possible, when conflicting arguments are similar in strength, especially, since I weigh links heavily. Especially the depth and explanation of the link. Links usually come down to which one is more true in the round, and who gave me the most depth.

I can keep up for the most part on flows but I have trouble at high speed, as I only have one ear so it makes it more difficult to hear at times. I still listen to podcasts and youtube videos between 1.15 and 1.5 speed pretty much always, so I can certainly keep up to a certain point, but clear tags and authors and dates will be necessary and you need to have good pronunciation. So in general, air on the side of flay or fast but not spew speed.

Dropping something in a speech and bringing it up later is pretty much a no-no. If they discuss something in CX I think it's fair game to talk about in your next speech but I don't flow cx so it needs to be on the flow from a speech in order to really count in the round.

Paraphrased and cut evidence needs to be legitimate and not exaggerated. The more you power-tag your evidence the less likely I vote for you. The more you paraphrase the more I rely on your links to be legitimate.

Use of logic, common knowledge, philosophical implications, etc... are all ways to provide evidence to an argument that doesn't necessitate the use of cards. Feel free to use them, I weigh these types of arguments and believe they matter depending on the topic. In general, evidence is preferred in matters of things likely to happen. And the philosophy should have implications to some ethical framing and told why it matters. An example I see students fail at too often that I know could be better is privacy. You need to tell me why privacy matters in this round, not just that it invades privacy but that it causes actual harm to people like distress, corruption, etc....

Road map and organize the flow well in the speech, please. If you plan on following a CP/K/etc... format please let me know how many sheets I need.

Be clear about what your arguments mean for the round, i.e. go back to the framing of the round, whether that be framework of a case or argument. Tell me why it matters for who I sign the ballot for.

Please be ethical. Do not steal prep, get evidence to your opponents in a timely manner, and treat debate as a friendly game. Plastic trophies don't matter after a few years, trust me I have thrown away countless awards from random invitationals at this point. What matters is the work you put in and the memories you get out of debate. Look to 'steelman' your opponents argument, i.e. try to be even better than your opponent at explaining their argument. If they are having trouble framing their argument, help them. This gives you lots of credibility and allows for cleaner wins if you are good enough.

Understand what you are winning and losing on, it's probably not worth going for things you are way behind on unless it's critical to winning the round.

I don't time evidence transfers until they start being laborious. Be respectful of my time and your opponent's time.

Roadmaps can be off time as well and I recommend you use one if you are doing more than telling me aff or neg flow first and the other 2nd (i.e. policy style flowing). Just tell me where you are starting if it's just an aff and neg flow of traditional debate.

I'm open to hearing essentially any argument, including things like speed Ks. The impacts matter a lot to me. Why are the in round impacts worth talking over the education of a traditional round. Why is this an a priori issue or a prerequisite to in round impacts?

Weighing- I've heard a lot of basic impact calculus this year and it's been okay. But you need to do the comparison to why things like your probably impacts matter more than their magnitude impacts. People miss the clash on impact weighing far too often. Usually, you fight over whether the probability vs. magnitude matters more, but if you both run nuclear war you need to argue why your timeframe and/or probability are stronger, or that your severity is stronger. What I mean is, why is nuclear war worse in one area over another (usually because it will cause some other bad impacts like climate change, effect air quality, destroy more crops, etc...).

Tag teaming- In general, I am cool with tag teaming to answer questions or to help your partner by clarifying the language of the question they want to ask. I don't want partners to be ignored and talked over. Each of you need to know what you are talking about, tag teaming only helps the collaborative nature of the debate.

Speaker Points- I tend to give the strongest debaters speaker points but rudeness and influency do make a difference. If the tournament allows, I'm more than willing to give low-point wins because one mistake can cost you a round even if you were the better debater. This is rare but does happen.

--PF--

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

I'm cool with teams running alts but the other team can perm them. Pro does not need a specific plan but not having some sort of model or idea to what you are doing will hurt you in most rounds unless you show me why your ground is more broad than a basic model. This can have multiple parts to achieve something.

Dropping arguments as the 2nd speaking debater is still dropping arguments, don't give new refutation in the summary as I will not listen by that point and will sign my ballot. Figure out what to go for and what not to, figure out how to win without directly refuting an argument, or just get good in general.

--LD--

If you are using Val/Cri's, only debate over them if it matters for the round, disagreeing over the minutia of which utilitarian framework to use is not fun to sit through or debate it. Clash with the key differences if you need to and don't be afraid to clash if you feel it gives you ground you wouldn't otherwise have.

Cool with CPs and Plans, the same rules apply from policy if you choose to do this especially. Consider reading that section if you are wanting to run a CP or plan.

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

Please don't put too much fluff and defense in your case, that's what refutation is for. Only define the terms that need defined. And everyone reserves the right to clarify a definition in the next speech after a definition becomes an issue.

--Policy--

Depth over breadth, please.

I'm cool with K's, CPs, etc... and I will flow the different main arguments on separate pieces of paper, just let me know on stuff like theory, framing, etc... where to flow and I will really appreciate it. I tend to take debate as a serious mental game, and respect what it can be even if most of the time it doesn't reach that. So give me reasons to vote for weird arguments that matter because things like K's and Theory matter when it makes a difference in the debate space.

Like I said above, I'm fairly comfortable with speed to a certain point but just be cognizant about your pronunciation and your taglines with the author and date. I keep a good flow and can handle most people's speed but I can't keep up with spewing usually.

Learn how to actually impact calc, look above for some instruction as I discuss it in how I vote.

I tend to not be conditional, if you feel other arguments are better than others, collapse to what you think will win you the round.

I thought I was judging pf please be patient with me

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". I default to a "better debater" standard. Be sure to provide evidence for how the ballot will create change.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge to intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

I believe that a professional, intellectual, logically cohesive approach is superior to all other tactics employed within debate, including but not limited to, unprofessional conduct, excessive emotional displays, attempts at confusion (e.g., fast talking, excessive/irrelevant points/facts/pillars/etc.), over-reliance on dominance techniques, etc.

In short, I will extract the essence of how well you filled-out/completed your affirmation or negation framework and judge based upon that. All other factors will either be discarded or reflect negatively on your score.

Philosophy

I completed my undergraduate degree in computer science as well as graduate work. Therefore, I am intensely attuned to logical progressions within the overall debate flows, within the aff and neg frameworks, and particularly in rebuttals and summations.

Statements, assertions, arguments, rebuttals that I perceive to be non-sequitur will have a pronounced negative effect on your score. Unsupported or poorly supported "facts" will not bode well.

I have three years of experience within Lincoln Douglas. I am also a little experienced in Impromptu and Extemp. When it comes to debate cases, I like traditional just cause they're usually easier to follow, but I can handle K, T, and progressive type cases too. Whatever you want to run and argue I'd love to hear and judge, just do your best to be clear, precise, and unique.

I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.

LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.

If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.

Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.

PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh. I listen for good impact weighing that is connected to your value criterion.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh. Communicate impact or measure.
• Do not make assumptions.
• Do not say racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

Make it the best debate possible. Be respectful of your opponent I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

I am an assistant debate coach and a high school teacher.

In general, my Paradigm includes strong arguments that shows inherency to why you made that claim. You must have well-constructed and organized speeches, with strong evidence to back up any claims that you make. You must also be able to present your argument well with a strong speech. I look for debaters who are able to properly convey their argument while being articulate. You should be able to convince me that the claim that you make regarding the bill is solvent and overall show why that side is the side to support.

she/her, audreymeyer2020@gmail.com

General

I prefer clash and aggression beyond what most judges like, that being said debate how you're most effective (THAT being said I typically view the most effective team as the most strategically offensive, no-nonsense, least-decorous-during-CX team)

Uphold your framework throughout the entire round or I will not evaluate it

I love and will buy complex link chains within reason

CX will be paid attention to, flowed and weighed HEAVILY

Speed is fine, I flow on my laptop - will "slow/clear" you if it's too much

Warrants/analysis>empirics - this should be obvious

Roadmaps are good if kept under 5 seconds

Speaks are awarded on efficacy/coherency, not necessarily presentation/decorum/eye contact etc

Make it easy for me to judge the round by upholding framework throughout every speech, roadmapping, signposting and using clear/concise voters and telling me exactly where to value your case over your opponents - I will not do any work/connect any dots for you

Pet Peeves

Don't let your question/answer in CX go over 15 seconds

Decorum ruins CX, for the love of god just ask and answer questions

Don't abuse your prep/speech time - im timing you

Refer to your cards by their tags not authors/sources or I won't remember what they are

Joking/swearing/sassing is fine, it will only impact your speaks if you're being offensive.

I like to hear clear signposting!

ei. Contention 1..., my framework is..., attacking my opponents contention subpoint 2a....

I was a debater for four years specializing in L.D. and ora

tory. I definitely prefer traditional L.D., but I respect the progressive format as well. I can keep up with Spreading so long as it's clear and you slow down on your taglines. If you lack clarity while Spreading I will not be able to thoroughly process and flow your arguments. I am definitely a believer that the quality of your arguments is much more important than the quantity thereof.

It is crucial that you emphasize the impacts of your arguments. Tell me why your argument is important as well as what that argument is and how it relates to your value. Also, be sure to clash! Show me where and why your opponent's arguments fail AND why I should care more about yours. Make sure to properly source your cards and that your cards logically flow with your contentions.

As far as presentation, clarity, confidence, and civility are key. I will judge first and foremost on your arguments, but it is crucial that you are able to present those arguments in a persuasive manner. Be civil with your opponent. Debate is about convincing and honest communication and tearing apart arguments, it is not about tearing apart another person to lift up your own ideas.

I'm excited to see what you can do and what you have to say. Have fun and give me something to think about! :)

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

General notes: My job is to pick out a winner and a loser, a first place and a not-so-first place. Not everyone gets to win. You are all beautiful, worthwhile humans. If I, who am also a human, do not pick you as the winner, don't take it personally. Take my opinions with a grain of salt, see if my feedback has anything in common with what other judges have brought up, and move on. Fussing about your results with me will only justify my decision more; you have come to debate your opponents, not the judge. I wonder if the reason why so many coaches have a hard time finding volunteer judges could be because some students don't get these basic realities? HMMM... :)

Event-specific paradigms

Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing.

Hopefully I have by this point established that I am a judge who values substance over form. I will be judging the whole of your arguments, and while I will refrain from allowing my own personal biases or my own "rebuttals" from influencing the decision for the round, I will rely on the logical arguments provided to me throughout the round to decide the case. Do not think of your debate case as a series of bullets that, if your opponent misses one bullet (contention), that your entire case falls through. Think of your cases rather as structures of logical argumentation--where you craft the logic of your argument to be able to withstand any attack, whilst exploiting the architectural flaws in your opponents' case.

A note on theory or K cases, whether they be on the AFF or NEG: These are totally valid strategies for winning the round, if used non-abusively. Too often I have seen teams walk into the round knowing they will run a racist K when they know next to nothing about the background of their opponents or their opponents' case. If you decide to run a theory or K argument, expect a great deal of scrutiny on my part to ensure you are not abusing the educational value of the round.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Public Forum: This event was originally created by the NSDA in response to the complaints made that Policy and LD had both become corrupted with a nonsensical gamification that prioritized form over substance. Public Forum was created with the intent to avoid those problems. Therefore, expect me to have a very dim view on spewing. The only other place spewing is even slightly practical outside the speech and debate world is rattling off the warnings and disclaimers at the end of radio ads about cars or pills, or if you are planning on being an auctioneer. Seeing as there's a reasonable chance that is not a common career goal for PF debaters, don't expect me to judge you favorably if you ignore the warning to avoid spewing.

In any debate round, I aim to take a wholistic approach to the overall logical strength of both sides. Don't count on being able to abuse the round by fitting in seven different contentions into your case and then expect me to reward you for not having the other team be able to sufficiently answer each of your contentions. And the logical strength of your argument is not served by simply reading cards. I expect critical analysis and discussion of your evidence. And while your case should be backed up by evidence, not every compelling argument need be made with a card. If one of your cards can be cleanly refuted with responsible logic, I will dismiss that card, regardless of the authority of the source. The logical fallacy of ad auctoritate is not a viable approach to a true victory in the debate.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Lincoln-Douglas: This event was instituted by the NSDA in response to complaints that Policy Debate had devolved from its original purpose of a healthy debate where the logical substance of both arguments would clash together in a serious discussion of significant issues. Lincoln-Douglas, unfortunately, has not been immune to the corrupting effects of the cancerous influence of the meta-game of Policy Debate, and I expect the debaters I judge to responsibly debate without manifesting the immoral foibles typical of Policy Debate. In other words, don't spew.

If you choose to present a case that varies from the traditional argumentation format of Lincoln-Douglas, you are free to do so inasmuch your "creativity" is not abusive to the educational value of the round and do not put your opponents in a position where they could not have reasonably anticipated to be able to have to counter every outlandish argument their opponents could make.

I place high value on the logical substance of both sides of the debate. While evidence-based cases are an obvious necessity, your opponents' rebuttals need not always have a "card" to counter one of your own, inasmuch as the opponent in question is able to point out any serious logical flaws that may be present in the card you present. Remember to defend the strength of your value and criterion.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Congress: Chairs, please be sure to be fair in whom you allow to speak and when, and follow priority. Speakers, I will judge you based on the logical strength of your argumentation, your ability to successfully address attacks against your argumentation, and your speaking performance (construction of the speech, audience engagement, etc).

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your speeches; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the discussion of the house itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a speech/debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Impromptu, OO :I will judge you according to these three criteria:

1) Relevance. Did you address a subject in a way that I can easily see why I or the audience should care about what you are talking about?

2) Uniqueness. Was what you said in your performance something I have probably heard 20 times about already? Or was it a sob story that (while admittedly it may be sad and tragic, and you have my condolences) was calculated to exclude other students who haven't had their "sob story" happen yet?

3) Call to change. How successfully do you persuade the audience that we should live or think or feel differently about something in supporting the main thesis of your speech?

Extemp: I will judge according to these three criteria:

1) Topicality. Did you answer the prompt you chose completely and fully?

2) Evidence. Was your speech evidence-based as opposed to "Here's some generic facts I can tease out abut this issue?" Was your evidence cited?

3) Analysis. Did you make an effort to add your own unique insight and commentary on the topic, and was this commentary/analysis logical?

Interp Events: I will judge you according to these criteria:

1) Characterization. To what degree can I believe that you are your characters, and not a teenage student from a team other than my own whom I hardly know?

2) Emotive Technique. Strong acting choices, incorporation of the narrative arc, believable and text-based emotive variety.

3) Vocal Technique. Are the voices for the different characters separate and distinct, quality of diction/enunciation, and appropriate vocal variety.

Standard parent-volunteer judge. No spreading and no theory, please.

Hi, I’m Ana (she/her)

background:

I debated for Copper Hills for three years. I did a little bit of everything debate wise throughout my high school career, but mostly did LD.

tl;dr

• if you read arguments about sexual violence in any context please provide a tw *

• please include me on the email chain anastacia.tennant@yahoo.com

• tech > truth; any arguments that require judge intervention will probs get you dropped

• depth > breadth is great in 9/10 instances

• flex prep is fine

• cx is important. i will flow it but if you want to win on an arg from cx, definitely bring it up in future speeches

• pls sign post. it truly makes my life easier

• in your 2ar/2nr write my ballot for me, tell me why you believe you should win. what does a world with your name on the ballot look like. in other words, please be completely clear as to why you are winning.

• you can run pretty much whatever argument you’d like to in front of me. i enjoy a k debate (if it’s done properly), performance debate is my fav, but i’m also down with some traditional ol’ args. [with that said, power differentials / power protected rounds happen sometimes and if you can tell you are more well versed than your opponent and are belittling, i will deck your speaks. it doesn’t help anyone and debate is supposed to be an inclusive space]

extended version:

• my fav debates to watch are performance (but if you do this, make sure to carry it through and explain why you’re winning on it, this is especially important in LD where with such short speech times, the important things can get lost), a properly done K debate, pretty much any kind of theory (unless it’s obscure and is a waste of time for the aff team - these debates get boring to watch)

* i also dig traditional debate as i did a lot of it in hs but if you’re gonna go traditional, please try to make it interesting :)

so, essentially

CPs/PICs/DAs/plan texts:

cool beans

K debate or performance debate:

extra cool beans

• tech > truth extended: this is my outlook to an extent, if you abuse the tech bit (this especially goes for the locals) by having way too much breadth > depth and then belittling your opponent for not catching it all, that’s super meh

• flex prep is actually super interesting, you can definitely use your prep time to ask your opponent more questions, especially if this helps you get into a position you need to be in for your next rebuttal

• on that note, as i mentioned before, cx is super important in a debate round - definitely try to use it to get yourself into a better situation in the debate round. you should probably bring up things that you ask in cx in your rebuttals if your opponent answers the way that you want them to. also, please finish your thought even if the timer goes off mid-answer or mid-question

• don’t be exclusive in the debate space continued: a lil bit of dominance in round never hurt anybody, but nobody gains anything by extensive unnecessary aggression or making the round inaccessible to your opponent in any way (whether it be using jargon that they obvi don’t understand, going at a speed that they can’t process, using a highlight color that they can’t see, using demeaning language, or other things along those lines). you just look mean and that’s one of the many reasons that people leave the community

personal things:

• i don’t think it’s necessary for you to make eye contact if you’re uncomfortable with it, i will not dock your speaks

• on that note, i’m not very expressive unless you make a super solid point or say something i absolutely do not buy. thus, looking at my face throughout the debate doesn’t do much as far as predicting the ballot

• definitions are usually super unnecessary, i can almost guarantee that your opponent and i are familiar with the words “should, “ought,” and “nuclear”

• i could not care less where you sit in the room as long as you’re comfortable

• i’m happy to answer any questions about my decision after the debate is over / give further critiques if needed - but after we all leave the room, email me about it

This shouldn’t have to be said - but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. or I will drop you and substantially deck your speaks.

Hi! I am so excited to be judging you today!

Background/Credentials:

My name is Diana (she/her). I graduated in 2019 and competed in debate actively for 3 years in high school. I competed in a variety of both speech and debate events, my main event being LD.

I have a fair understanding of debate, but it has been a while since I've judged. If there are any new rules since things have changed due to the pandemic (like internet use rules, etc.) that you feel I need to know, please let me know!

Judging Lincoln Douglas:

Cases- The debate space is an environment where everyone should have the freedom to run whatever they want. Even though each judge, including me, has their own preferences, please do not let it stop you from running any kind of case, whether that is traditional or progressive. I will say that I was a more trad debater and I am more familiar with the structure and concepts within traditional cases. I will also note that I am personally not very fond of performance cases and K's that are not ran well.

Speed- Speak at the pace you’re most comfortable with. I can handle quicker speeds of talking, as long as there is clarity, and you slow down on taglines.

Framework- Personally, I believe that framework is a very important aspect in LD. Please clearly explain the link between your value and value criterion and make sure not to drop your opponent’s or your own framework. In a close round, the framework might be a deciding voter for the debate (unless both sides drop the framework debate entirely).

Line-By-Line- I heavily emphasize and appreciate line-by-line! Dropping one subpoint or contention does not mean an automatic loss but it might make an impact in a very close round. It is important to learn how to allocate your speech times appropriately, so that you are not leaving any arguments uncontested.

Judging Public Forum:

I competed in PF for only a few tournaments near the end of my senior year. I feel that I competed enough to gain a basic understanding of its format, structure, and times, but I am less familiar with the super technical stuff. If certain arguments are clearly explained in your speeches, I’m sure I can pick them up. Please feel free and approach me as a lay judge, though.

Like my paradigm for judging LD, any speed is acceptable as long as there is clarity, and line-by-line is important. I do understand that framework is not as heavily emphasized in PF. As long as you touch quickly on it and compare it, that is good with me!

If you have any further questions about the round or on advice with anything debate-related, please feel free to come talk to me if you see me around!

Most importantly, be confident, try your best, and be proud of yourself!

Best of luck! :)

I will flow just about everything. I weigh dropped arguments harder than highly contested arguments. For example, if Team A has ground on their Contention 1, and Team B doesn't ever answer or refute and put a counterargument on the flow, that Contention will be of a larger impact than Team A's contention 2 which both sides were fighting for back and forth.

If both teams cover everything on the flow to the best of their ability, it will come down to who provided the best analytical and evidential arguments. This will also largely come from whichever team had the best speaking ability.

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

About me:

I come from a very traditional circuit. Luckily, our school allows it's students to travel and learn about the progressive debate format. Full disclosure, one of my students helped me write this paradigm. I would prefer to watch a traditional round but I am open to viewing a BASIC progressive round.

Speed:

I will not understand what you are talking about if you are spreading. It is your responsibility to make sure that I understand your case.

CX:

I enjoy cross examination. I do not appreciate snarky remarks. I prefer for you to conduct yourselves in a polite manner. I will not flow CX and I will not connect your arguments, you need to make the connection for me.

K's:

I would really appreciate if you would not read any Kritiks, only because I will not understand what you are talking about. If you do choose to read a K, you need to explain everything so that I can understand.

Other notes:

*Off time road maps are a necessity and greatly appreciated

*I am willing to give you a 10 second grace period after the timer has gone off to wrap up your final thoughts. Any continuation beyond the grace period will not be flowed.

MOST OF ALL: Make sure you are having fun! I am looking forward to judging your rounds. <3