I primarily debated LD for four years on the Iowa circuit and lightly on the national circuit and in Public Forum and Congress intermittently.

General:

Don't assume I know or think anything. Even if I think a case is bad, contradictory, or problematic, I can only judge the round based on what the competitors actually say.

Framework: This is the lens through which I will evaluate the round. I default to dropped framework, so it is imperative to address this ASAP so that discrepancies do not muddle the rest of the debate and I have a clear mechanism for determining the winner.

Evidence: Empirics will be preferred to abstract or speculative arguments without links or substantiation. It is of the utmost importance you have a complete understanding of your evidence. In the case of a card challenge or comparison, I will prefer the card where the team can cite the methodology and funding to the person who only has a snippet from the brief and can only explain it to the extent to which its been cut. Similar cards can be grouped in rebuttal only if the argument can apply to the entirety of the chain of evidence.

CF/CX: Answers given in the CX/CF are binding. However, the answers function independent of the flow unless integrated within the speeches. If a vital admission occurs in CX/CF, it must appear in the next consecutive speech to get ink on paper (PF: rebuttal, LD: NR/2AR) to extend through the round. On another note, it is important to explain complex or abstract argumentation effectively in the opportunity of the CF/CX. If it cannot be sufficiently explained to the opposition, there is a chance it has not been sufficiently explained to me as a judge, and in the case of the former, misunderstanding concepts within the round equates to ineffective or no clash making judging more difficult.

Extensions: The claim, warrant, and impact are paramount. Warrants and impacts are essential on the flow, especially extending through the round so that I can effectively compare the merits of each respective argument.

Signpost, signpost, signpost! Tell me where you want me to be on the flow - the contention or subpoint number, the name on the card you are referring to, etc.

Public Forum:

Summary: Everything you wish to flow through must be addressed here. I don't mind cross-applications or clumping, but the contentions/cards need to be mentioned so I can pull them through. The rest of the round should operate entirely out of what is mentioned in the summaries. If something goes dropped it's dead and I don't want it brought back up, except if to mention that it was dropped.

Lincoln Douglas:

Speed: I can adjudicate solely based on what I could comprehend of the round, so anything beyond fast but decipherable conversational speeds do competitors a disservice when judged by me. Comparatively, I am more likely to vote for a person who persuaded me through comprehensible, rational presentation than I am for someone who very well may have spread their opponent out of the round and covered the flow simply because I was unable to comprehend their arguments and thus could not make an informed decision. Putting speed on a scale, if you're usually at a 10, pull it back to a 6. I need you to slow down and put particular enunciation on tags, cards, or anything else you need to flow through.

Ks: I need a clear illustration of what is problematic and quantification for it in the status quo so it doesn't come off as pandering or circumvention. Don't assume I know or understand the premise of your k or that it defaults to significance; I need to be convinced that it is not only important but more important.

Theory: I don't have a problem with theory, though it isn't hard to spot when it circumvents actual debate. I only want theory when clear abuse necessitates it.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

Please do not spread. PF came into existence because the NSDA wanted to introduce an event that tackled policy issues WITHOUT the spreading, heavy jargon, and theory of Policy or LD; I do expect that you abide by that standard. (Obviously, you don't have to debate like a 2002 PFer, but be mindful of this.) We have policy for a reason; if you want to build excessively long link chains and speak about five times faster than I can type my flow, that's your prerogative, but you won't get my ballot.

Be mindful as well of judge preferences. I typically judge/coach Congress, and competed in Congress throughout high school (I also competed in LD and Extemp, but Congress was what I spent my most time on). You may be in a round with a flow judge panel - adapt to them, but if you're in a round with parent judges, adapt to them too. I won't penalize you for this, but make our ballot easy to write - if you don't, it's your fault.

Some important things to note:

• Please weigh arguments for me. The best single thing you can do to win my ballot would be to give me a really clear final focus that basically writes my RFD for me.  Make the judge's job easy.
• If your evidence looks sketchy and the tournament permits, I will call for evidence if it sounds sketchy. Please don't cite a think-piece from Vox or WaPo as empirics; opinions ≠ facts.
• Let me repeat: WEIGH ARGUMENTS. If you have evidence that shows a benefit in one way, and your opponents have evidence that contradicts it, BE CLEAR about why your evidence is better. Don't just expect me to flow it through.
• When referencing a card you've previously mentioned in the debate, try to give me more than just the author name.
• Be clear about your framework, and why it's better than your opponents'. 
• If a speech goes by without responding to your opponents' rebuttal of your argument, I will consider your argument dropped.
• Avoid abusive frameworks that put an unreasonable burden on your opponents.

Good luck.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE PARADIGM

Based on the paradigm of Joe Bruner, which was in turn based on the paradigm of Reilly Hartigan...

Firstly, you are always welcome to come up to me after the round to ask how you did. I can't write as fast as I want to, and tournaments don't let me type critiques, so my comments on the ballot will always be more succinct than I'd like. I like helping people do well.

Here are some of the things I look for in round (you should optimally include all of them in your speech):

Clash: Don't just give me your argument - INTERACT with the round. Explain why your argument refutes another argument. Pre-empt other arguments if you're the first constructive. This isn't a speech event, it's a debate event, so debate. That means responding to people. 

There are three key ways to clash:

1. Pre-empting. In early speeches, you don't have much to refute, since the debate hasn't really fully happened yet - so bring up possible stock arguments from the other side and refute them if you can. You don't have to do this, but it gets debate going, and it actually helps you; as everyone else refutes you again and again throughout the rest of the round, you get tons of name ID and I remember you when I'm ranking my ballot. 
2. Refutation. This is simple - I expect refutation from the first negative speech onward (if you do not refute anything and have abundant opportunities to, your speech is pointless to me). When refuting, identify the original claim and the speaker(s) who said it; make a counter-claim that contradicts them; explain why your counter-claim is true using evidence or strong logic; then, and this is the important part, impact it to the round, explaining why your refutation MATTERS. 
3. Synthesis/Crystallization. Sometimes you get horrible precedence and all your arguments get taken (I've been there, I know the feeling); however, that doesn't mean you can't contribute to debate. Giving me a good crystallization speech is 1) impressive, because being able to summarize the whole debate and break it into voting issues isn't easy, and it is 2) helpful, because I'm trying to rank people and probably didn't flow the round - if you help me write my ballot, I might just put you on the shortlist for a high rank. Try to include at least one constructive argument, though, or at least some new information. If you don't, it won't hurt you much, but it doesn't help.

Evidence: At absolute minimum, I expect to hear two rock-solid pieces of evidence per speech. That's probably too low. Six sources in a speech? Probably too high. Don't just rattle off a bunch of data points - spend time explaining them, and paraphrase them. Remember, I'm judging a round for hours and hours at a time, and I'm really tired - if you give me a ton of complex data, it's going in one ear and out the other and you might not get the best rank. If you take your evidence, break it down, and explain it clearly to me, then you'll keep my attention (and a high rank). Also, cite good sources - I want to hear a Harvard study, or a GAO report, not a blog entry from the Huffington Post or TheBlaze. Lastly, be mindful of the bias that certain think tanks have - I'm not going to rank you down because you cite the Heritage Foundation (conservative) or the Center for American Progress (liberal), but if you just give me evidence that says "the Heritage foundation said X" and don't convince me of the logic of the point, I will not buy your evidence by default. So if the debate's on the impact of minimum wage increases, and you cite a Heritage study or a CAP study that says minimum wage hikes suppress/increase jobs, that is not enough; explain to me WHY that will happen, and then give me the study.

Analysis: This is key. Always convince me WHY your argument is correct. Show me you've investigated the issue thoroughly and know a lot about it. Keep your analysis succinct and to the point; keep it simple, stupid. I will rank up a debater who has better analysis over a debater who has better evidence.

Organization: I have a few pet peeves... avoid three-contention speeches, they leave you with too little time to elaborate on each point; don't formally roadmap your speech, it just wastes time; have clear logical transitions between points; have an overall THEME to your speech, it'll help me remember who you are as a debater when I'm ranking you. Remember that your introduction, impacts and conclusion are opportunities to grab my attention and tell me who you are; for example, as an Ohioan debater, I'd frequently use intros lampooning my Midwestern roots or go on diatribes about how "this Congress needs to do its job, the job the people sent us here to do" or how "my district knows the value of a dollar." It was corny, yeah, but it set me apart. Set yourself apart.

Delivery: Delivery is VERY important to me. I value solid, clear, engaging delivery as a prerequisite for evaluating the content of your arguments. If your speech is just all one-liners and fluff, no, I'm not ranking you, but if you're missing good delivery, I'm probably not ranking you highly. You don't have to be funny (though if you can, please do - think about it, I've been judging this for hours, help); you can bring anger, sadness, joy, all sorts of emotions into your delivery. KEEP ME HOOKED, AND KEEP ME GUESSING. Make it so when you end your speech, I'm mentally thinking "Wow! Oh my... where do I put you on my ballot?" instead of "ok... next." One tip about this is to look at your fellow competitors - has it been a really angry round? Try humor! Has it been a really boring, soft round? Try loudness! Has it been a really fast-paced flow debate? Slow down and give me persuasive impacts. Find the thing everyone else hasn't been doing, and set yourself apart by doing that. Showing me that you are capable of multiple emotional speech types (funny/solemn/angry) might just lead to a higher rank.

And, now, a section copied verbatim from the paradigm of Joe Bruner from Ardrey Kell HS:

"A SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT NOTE: I know many Congressional debaters who are women and/or minorities are sometimes held to a frustrating double standard on many delivery and presentation issues. If you are afraid of being highly aggressive due to being perceived as *y, catty, or intimidating in comparison to white male debaters doing the same thing, you do not need to worry about that in front of me. You also do not need to worry about your use of humor causing you to be perceived as not taking the event seriously. And honestly, I really don't give a shit if you wear dark/reserved colors, pantyhose, or a pearl necklace. Wear whatever you like yourself in."

Could not agree more.

Attitude: Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. You can be angry as hell in a speech, or even somewhat mocking, that's fine... but when the round ends, it ends. It's over. That's it. Done. No arguments, please. And it goes without saying that making sexist/racist/homophobic/etc etc comments about another debater, even out of the round, is out of bounds. 

A quick note on internet use... Kinda oxymoronic, because unless the tournament permits it, you cannot use internet in round. When I competed, I knew a few people who used the internet during a round to get notes from their coach, or check a fact. I hated that when I competed, and I don't want to see it in any round I judge. If you have a webpage open on your web browser but have wifi turned off, I may ask to check your laptop after the session concludes, but just save your articles as PDFs to avoid the trouble. 

Extemporaneous Speaking: Show me that you've adapted to the round. If you walk in with a speech and just read it verbatim, that's not very impressive. (And if you're going to read off your paper, don't make it obvious that you're doing so. Make it seem natural and extemporaneous.) I definitely give higher ranks to people who I see adapting in round; for example, if you get screwed on recency and you prep a speech on the other side in five minutes because it's all you can give, and the speech is decent, I'm going to think "wow! This person was prepared! I should rank him/her up!".

Questions: I'm not going to give you too many tips on this; questioning is your time to build your narrative as a debater, poke holes in opponents' arguments, and remind me that you exist in a chamber of 20 people (I normally rank towards the end of the session, so if you gave early speeches, concentrating your questions towards the end is always a plus). If you screw up answering questions as a speaker, I will hold that against you when I rank. If you nail answering questions as a speaker, I might not rank you up because of that alone, but that does make a difference.

When direct questioning (30 sec back-and-forth) is in effect, questioning becomes a big factor in my rankings. You should demonstrate that you have knowledge of the subject and aim to poke a serious hole in your opponent's argument; if you pull off a really awesome line of questioning that forces the speaker to concede a point, you bet I'm marking that down as a reason to rank up your ballot.

Amendments: This is one place where I'm different than some judges - I love amendments, and if you make good strategic ones, I will consider that in whether or not I improve your rank. Amendments don't need to be linked to your speech specifically, as they can just show that you're the "best legislator" - if there's an argument that just keeps coming up on neg about the semantics of the bill, for example, proposing an amendment to correct the line of the bill with the semantic issue is a great use of an amendment. And, if the chamber shoots your amendment down, all the better - you can then shame them for it in your speech/questions.

And finally, Presiding: Unless you decided to preside 'for the good of the chamber', I expect quite a lot from presiding officers.

You must be QUICK, ACCURATE, COMMANDING, KNOWLEDGEABLE, and FAIR. Know your parliamentary procedure and the tournament rules; have a gavel ready; have printouts of both parli procedure and the tournament rules to refer to if necessary. You can absolutely defer to the parli on things, but make sure I can see that you have it all under control. If you make a mistake on precedence/recency, I will consider giving you a low rank. If you make two mistakes on precedence/recency, I will strongly consider giving you a low rank. If you make a serious error (calling up the wrong speaker and not catching it immediately, taking a very long pause to correct an error, calling the wrong questioners, disputing a valid point of order), I will rank you low. Some people think they can 'coast' through prelims by presiding; I think presiding is both an honor and a significant responsibility, and it should be treated as such.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case that's fine just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

I am a teacher and coach at Eastview High School (MN) - the 2023-2024 school year is my 21st year coaching and my 25th year involved in speech and debate. Full disclosure: I don't judge a whole lot. I'm usually doing other things at tournaments. But: I do actively coach, I enjoy judging almost every time I get to, and I like to think I'm fairly predictable in terms of what I look for and prefer.

You can ask me questions in round if you wish.

PF: I can "handle speed", though I don't know that I've seen many fast PF debaters. I have seen many blippy PF debaters. To me, speed does not equate to 40 cards, of varying word count, that are blippily extended. I very much prefer depth and extension of ideas than extension of tons of author names that all don't say a whole lot.

Congress: What I most value in this event include:

(1) Debating! Pre-scripted speeches (with the exception of an authorship) don't do much for me. Each speech should be somehow moving the debate forward; when speeches are merely read, they don't have that power. This also means that rehashing of points should be avoided. If you do discuss arguments previously made, what can you do to move them forward and develop a deeper line of analysis? Some type of impact analysis, new weighing, perhaps a new facet of the problem? Just repeating argumentation doesn't help move the debate forward.

(2) Thesis-driven speeches. I like to see a clear framework, clear organization, and a coherent structure that all supports some major theme within your speech. A hodgepodge of impacts and arguments that feel unrelated don't have as much weight as a speech that has a central, core idea behind it.

(3) Evidence. Moreso than an author name, I do like to hear credentials and dates. Not only that, evidence comparisons are so often key to the debate - why should I prefer your evidence over other evidence that has been heard so far in the round?

(4) Diversity of Cycle Position. If I hear a debater give me four first negative speeches, I don't feel like I get a true sense of the skill of that debater. Preferably, I'd like to hear each entry speak in different parts of the cycle. If you give me a first negative, maybe work to have a speech near the end of the debate to show my your crystallization skills. If you have a mid-cycle speech, maybe work to have a constructive speech next time. Obviously, your precedence and recency determines some of your order, but work to showcase differing skills in the round.

(5) Cross-x is important, but not everything. Speeches carry far more weight than questions. I do listen to questions, take into account your chamber activity, and really enjoy hearing c-x's that bring up holes in a position (or expertly bolster a position). But too often, I see debaters hurting themselves in c-x more than helping themselves. Overly aggressive, snippy, demeaning c-x's just don't help build a debater's eithos. Two competent debaters can have a good discourse without resulting to being mean. In c-x, I like to get proof that you truly "know your stuff" - that you're researched, have a handle on the topic, and didn't just read some brief that was given to you.

(6) Knowledge. The very best debaters, in my opinions, are the ones that have a fundamental understanding of the issues and can communicate them in a clear, impactful way. That simple statement is really hard to master. It is fairly clear when a person is well read, can respond to arguments with substantiated claims on fly, and can think on a deeper level. Show me your mastery of the content and you will be rewarded.

Finally, (7) Just Debate. I enjoy Congress - but when debate devolves into games and tricks designed to disadvantage any given speaker, I get frustrated. In my humble opinion, the very best debaters work to get their wins through mastery of the content, clear argumentation, and a firm but kind debating style. Resorting to games is beneath that. Have fun, for sure, but don't do so at the expense of others.

Background: I actively coached from the fall of 2002 through the national tournament of 2017. I coached all events at various points, but had strong LD, PF, Congress, and Individual Events experience through the years. I was on the Board of Directors of the National Speech & Debate Association prior to joining the organization as their Director of Community Engagement. Through that work I oversaw processes related to topic writing, competition rules, publications, and National Tournament operations. I am currently the Principal of Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa.

Debate preferences:

1) Clear signposting

2) Give me clear warrants - even in extensions - with specific impacts.

3) I prefer having a framework to compare impacts to, which makes weighing important.

4) I am not against speed, however, I do not judge a lot. Therefore, I don't have the skill that I used to. Slow down for tags and analytics.

5) Theory/Kritiks - I am not inherently opposed, however, I worry about the assumptions people make about how arguments interact with one another and me having that same knowledge. I also worry about the lack of time to develop such arguments.

I am a head debate coach at East Ridge High School in Minnesota with 10 years of debate under my belt and 15+ years of speech coaching / judging experience as well. I love both activities, and I love seeing creative / unique approaches to them. I've sent several students to Nationals in both speech and debate categories for the past several years.

In 'real life' I'm an intellectual property attorney. I love good arguments in all types of debate. But I will NOT make logic jumps for you. You need to do the legwork and lay out the argument for me, step by step. I LOVE legal arguments, but most of all I love a good Story. Frame your arguments for me. Make the impacts CLEAR. (e.g. in PF / LD - WEIGH them.) Tell me how and why to write my ballot for you and I probably will!

Voting Values
I vote on topicality in any type of debate that I judge. If your arguments are non-topical, and you get called on it, they will be struck from my flow. Everyone got the same resolution / bills, that's what I want to hear arguments about.

I am NOT a fan of Kritiks - you got the resolution ahead of time. Debate it.

SPEED

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Re: new arguments in GC/FF - I won't weigh new ARGUMENTS, but I will consider new EVIDENCE / extensions.

Re: Argument / Style - I'm here to weigh your arguments. Style is only important to the extent you are understandable.

I generally don't buy nuclear war arguments. I don't believe any rational actor gets to nuclear war. I'll give you nuclear miscalc or accident, but it's a HIGH burden to convince me two heads of state will launch multiple warheads on purpose.

Lincoln-Douglas: If you give me a V/C pairing, I expect you to tie your arguments back to them. If your arguments don't tie back to your own V/C, I won't understand their purpose. This is a values debate. Justify the value that you choose, and then explain why your points best support your value.

Congress: This is debate. Beautiful speeches, alone, belong in Speech categories. I expect to see that you can speak well, but I am not thrilled to listen to the same argument presented three times. I expect to see clash, I expect to see good Q&A. I love good rebuttal / crystallization speeches.

I DO rank successful POs - without good POs, there is no good Congressional Debate. If you PO well in front of me, you will be ranked well.

World Schools: This actually is my favorite form of debate. I want to see respectful debate, good use of POIs, and organized content. I've judge WSD at Nationals for the last several years and I do adhere to the WSD norms. Please do not give me "regular debate" speed - I want understandable, clear speeches.

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.