My paradigm for judging:

Decorum required at all times.

Do not yell at me- We are in a small room and I don't need you to yell to get your point across. I have been involved in Speech and Debate for 20 years- I competed in debate and interp in middle school, high school, and collegiate level. I have been coaching this activity for 8 years. I tend to like cool, calm, collected- not loud and chaotic.

I will flow the round- if I don't look up often, I am not ignoring you- just listening and checking the flow.

Your job is to present ideas, arguments, and rebuttals in a professional manner. Debaters should educate the judges, and have thorough background knowledge of the topic. You should also have fun- show off your hard work and represent your school/state well!

Please do not use full prep time if you do not need it! It is a waste of time to run out the clock if you are ready to speak.

Excited to judge your round!

Did policy in hs, two years removed now. I'm down for whatever, but if you're gonna spread give me the speech docs. You gotta tell me why you deserve to win (e.g. tell me why topicality is a voter and why I should consider it before everything else). Also please remember I have no idea what this topic is so explain jargon if ur gonna use it.

Policy- Solvency is overall the biggest thing that will win a debate round (For me), proving that you can solve for your plan under the resolution and that the benefits of your plan will happen and the disadvantages of your plan are less of an impact than the neg said.

For neg you have to do all the same but the opposite, prove aff wont solve, prove that disadvantages are more important and that the affs advantages wont happen.

If somebody wants me to vote for something a certain way ex- vote on your ballot for the team that can save the most lives or keep the quality of life up etc I'll take it into consideration but not base the round of that idea unless both teams are trying to win under that claim.

Speaking skills- eye contact,infliction, not stumbling over words, confident, not rude or interrupting

Hi everyone, my name is Liz. I'm fairly easy going and enjoy hearing new material so if you're looking to try a new argument, I'm your judge. I'll get to specifics in a bit.

BIO: I am currently a junior at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. I have three years of LD and Congressional debate experience from high school on the Missouri circuit. I am majoring in psychology with minors in history and humanities in medicine. I have varied interests/experience in everything from political theory to aeronautics, so there's probably very little you could talk about that I will get bored by.

______________

SPEAKS

0-20: you were belligerent/racist/homophobic/rude or some combo of awful. I have no tolerance for disrespect. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another and remember, debate the resolution, not your opponent.

21-25: you weren't any of the above but you still didn't do anything correctly.

26-27: you were decent but need to improve on how the arguments function together and/or delivery.

28-29: you handled the round well and are a solid debater. you answered different arguments well.

30: I have no corrections. You had a perfect round - all your arguments are on point and were delivered properly. You made a strategic argument that I was impressed by.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Framework

Case Arguments (including K's, DAs, etc.)

______________

POLICY

Speed: I'm LD at heart which means I'm not a huge fan of speed. Talk as fast as you want but speak clearly. I don't consider it a strategic move or a "win" if you speak at a rate your opponent (or I) can't understand. Be concise in your arguments and speed shouldn't be an issue. If you go too fast I will say "speed," after 2x I stop flowing. Arguments not on my flow will not be voted on.

Kritiks: I used K's when I debated but it's been a while so while I'm open to them, make sure to explain the lit and how it applies to the round. Do not run multiples in a round. Race, disability, and queer lit are all good in front of me. Neg needs to tell me to ignore the alt and explain/support why.

Disads: I'm all for them but make them specific. Generic disads leads to generic debates. Don't make me listen to a generic debate.

Topicality: If you're going to argue this, go all in on the 2NR. It can be a voter but it's not going to win the ballot alone.

Theory: Disclosure theory is important to me and I will vote on it if brought up, but I do not want a debate solely on theory.

______________

LD

Everything under policy applies here as applicable.

Framework: This is a big one for me. LD is about supporting your framework. If you can prove that your opponent fails to hold up their framework or your case supports their value/value criterion better, then you got my vote. This is where to clash.

I know my LD philosophers so feel free to use those too.

I like my LD to have the classic framework clash, but I still like progressive Ks and DAs. Make a unique argument that makes me change my mind or think a little harder about it. I give higher speaks to debaters who make concise arguments and remain confident, especially in close debates (don't give up early).

I graduated 2015, and competed in CX/Policy debate. I competed in World schools Nationals. I did IX as well.

My CX paradigm is as follows without using any fancy words, I'll vote on anything you can sale me on. Topicality, Theory debate, and Counterplans are hard to sale, but if you have links or good debate it won't matter. Speed reading is fine, as long as I can hear you clearly with Headers for flow purposes.

Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com

My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!

Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.

No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:

Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.

Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.

K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!

I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.

Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.

I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!

PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.

Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.

LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.

Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com

My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!

Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.

No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:

Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.

Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.

K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!

I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.

Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.

I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!

PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.

Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.

LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.

I am a current debate student at Lee's Summit West High School. When judging a round, I look for speaking ability, how much the winning team is in control of the round, reliable sources and the quality of contentions and attacks.