Happy greetings! I debated (and speeched) all through high school and coached in 2021-2022. As a judge I keep good notes (flow). In debates I typically vote based on your voting issues and/or themes/critical arguments that are central and discussed often. But sometimes there is a clear winner in terms of their numerical domination on the flow, even if they're scoring low speaker points. I prefer no spreading cause I often don't catch everything (especially online) and I won't be sure if anything gets dropped. Please be compassionate and respectful to one another, you are all awesome! :)

Spreading is fine, but if you go so fast I stop writing, that's because I can't understand you. Your points cannot be added to the flow if I do not understand them. This will not happen often, but if you see me put the pen down, you are going too fast.

Please refrain from abusing theory until it drops dead and needs its corpse moved around on a marionette. You will be penalized for shameless abuse of debate.

I did LD, some Policy/CX, and Congress in high school.

Welcome to Speech and Debate! I competed in high school debate for two years and am currently competing in Speech and Debate on the collegiate level. In high school, I competed in Congressional Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking, Original Oratory, and Humorous Interpretation.

My credentials...

- I ended my career as one of the top 3 competitors in Congressional Debate in Mississippi.

- I competed in out-rounds at NSDA 2021 in Congressional Debate and P.O.ed on every level of competition.

- I was top 6 in HI at State Champs.

- I was State Champion in Original Oratory during the 2020-2021 MSHAA Debate Season.

- I STILL compete as a debater and speech kid!

Generally speaking...

- My pronouns are she/her!

- My email is madisonfbiggerstaff@gmail.com. Evidence? Loop me in! Questions? Don't hesitate to ask!

- Speech and Debate is an educational experience. Try to get something out of every round.

- Have fun! At the end of the day, the skills you acquire during your time as a debater are much more important than the trophies or wins.

For Congress:

- Clash with others in the chamber! Work to further the debate.

- Don't rehash! Bring up new points that haven't been introduced or attack/support points that were previously mentioned.

- Do NOT attack the speaker's personal looks or beliefs (unless you want this L).

- I love a good rebuttal speech. If you can demonstrate why the chamber should pass/fail a bill by addressing your opposing sides' arguments and take them down, I can tell you've been paying attention.

- PO will be in my top 8 if they are fair, clearly follow parliamentary procedure (there's wiggle room for a few mistakes, don't worry), and move the debate along. I'm looking for leadership! Being a PO isn't an easy task.

- Be yourself. Try not to give a "cookie-cutter" speech. I'm looking for originality and something that makes you different as a competitor. If you're yourself, you'll be your most confident and comfortable self. :)

For Public Forum:

- I can understand most competitors when speaking quickly. However, PF is supposed to be accessible, so tread carefully on spreading. If I cannot understand your contentions, it won't be flowed.

- Clearly define any terms in the resolution that may be interpreted in different ways.

- Defend your claims (I know, DUH). But, it is easy to get caught up in the main points of clash instead of dividing up your time appropriately.

- Use your crossfires appropriately. Don't waste any time.

- No long-winded questions/answers. This is interactive. Fair debates > Abusive debates.

Note: I'm big on no abuse in rounds. If you sound like Romeo during crossfire because you decided you must monologue, you aren't helping anyone (not even yourself). Even during your own speeches, there shouldn't be targeted remarks. Debate can be sassy, but shouldn't be disrespectful.

- Practice proper decorum and respect (unless you want the L).

- Explain it like I'm 12. If you can't tell me why I should vote for or against a resolution without using unnecessary jargon, I will probably default to the side that I understand better.

LD:

- My paradigm for LD is very similar to my paradigm for PF.

- Value and criterion are extremely important! Make sure you state these clearly.

Final Notes...

I don't ask for anything extra in rounds I judge. If I gave you a layout of how I wanted a round to go exactly, you wouldn't be your best self, competitor or not. I'm flexible. If you provide a good argument, support it without being abusive/rude, and do it with grace, you have a good standing in my books.

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

Background: Former LD, CX and PF debater

I’m tabula rasa on most things, just don’t advocate for positions that are evil or trollish.

I will attempt to respect the norms of the circuit and tournament I am judging at; I do not want to impose on any particular debate style and generally am more inclined to be open minded about things like this.

While evidence is good, I believe too often many rely on ‘evidence dumping’ and focus too little on analytics. Basically, spend a fair amount of time framing, contextualizing, weighing, clash, etc.

For speaker points, I base it off everything but your physical speaking ability. How well did I think you navigated the round, how did you choose to order arguments, and overall strategy contribute a lot here.

Respect each other and please signpost!

If you have questions please let me know.

bennettjamesbrown@gmail.com

My background is 3 years of high school PF, LD, and Congress, so I generally know my way around debate. That being said, I never got into the technicalities -- please don't come at me with formal theories and whatnot because most likely I will be quite lost. I prefer clear arguments, strong evidence, and a focus on the implications of your arguments; one way you can really emphasize these is through good, concise overviews whenever possible. That's where judges like me can make sure we have all the key points flowed.

I expect you to be respectful and polite towards one another; screaming matches, rude interruptions, false accusations, eye rolls, etc will not make me very happy. As for speed, please try to emphasize, enunciate, and not spread! I value public speaking abilities, and there's a line between getting the point across and just info-dumping on me.

I appreciate clever and creative arguments, but that doesn't mean a really well-thought, well-researched, and well-argued case with pretty obvious arguments can't win. All of this to say, relax, have fun, and I look forward to judging you debate!

Spread only if the speed you use also allows for enough enunciation that I can understand. I can keep up, but only if I can comprehend.

I believe in traditional debate. In LD, everything is about the V/VC construct and should apply to it. I don't really care about definition debate unless it is absolutely vital. Observations don't really matter to me unless both sides agree to them.

In, PF I try to take the position of a typical citizen judge and base "my knowledge" only on what you tell me in the round and not what I already know. Civility is still important in cross-examination so it is important to remember that with me.

In Policy, I am least familiar, so I base everything on my flow and which side has the most arguments standing by the end of the debate. Also, and I know it may be unusual, but I do care if the plan actually makes sense because I can't vote for it if it doesn't.

I don't listen to parenthetical documentation as a source. What does that mean anyway???

Credentials: I was a PFer throughout high school who dabbled in LD and CX but not too often. I was a PF state champion in a traditional state and have competed at a handful of national tournaments.

General:

- Back in the days when I was a debater, I was quite interested in technical debate styles like that seen on the national circuit. However, in my old age (23), I haven't been in the debate world for a while and haven't kept up with that type of stuff too much. This is all to say that I can flow whatever style of debate you're comfortable with as long as its nothing too crazy experimental. Just please keep in mind that debate is for everyone and I'm not gonna give you points just because you know a bunch of tech-y terms. Traditional done well is better than circuit done poorly. Also, if you're gonna spread please send me your case beforehand so I can flow everything correctly.

- Don't assume I know anything beyond the knowledge of a normal person (and remember normal people usually aren't nearly as educated on this topic as you are). I like to think I'm politically educated, but I'm not reading up on the geopolitical state of Bhutan every morning before I head off to work. Please give me at least basic context for what you're arguing. Don't throw out acronyms or niche terms that I have no idea of the meaning for. It takes 5 seconds to explain what a word means and could save you from having a confused judge.

- Just as an FYI, I'm very open to arguments attacking weak links as I believe lazy cases are often constructed with poor quality links from biased sources. If you can demonstrate that the opponent

- I'm generally tech > truth. I appreciate creative arguments if you can make them work. However, there are some caveats to this:

- Don't use a really unorthodox argument for the sole purpose of throwing off opponents who don't have prep on that one niche issue. While I'm certainly guilty of having done this time to time when I debated, in all honesty it makes debate more toxic and less accessible. Niche arguments are fine but only if you can prove that they aren't flimsy and shallow. If you're running a really weird argument at a traditional tournament, please make sure the links are solid and topicality is not questionable (particularly in PF, I'm ok with topicality being an issue in LD). If you run something totally off the wall (in a bad way) and your opponent calls you on disclosure theory or fairness, I will definitely hear them out.

- Tech > truth does not mean I will remain unbiased against clear misinformation from links. If you use a source that is widely known to be not trustworthy, I will be biased against that argument it is supporting. While it is still the opponent's duty to say the source is biased, I can't just let an InfoWars citation slide without at least being inclined not to trust the argument.

- Weigh your arguments. I can't emphasize this enough. I don't care if an argument flows the round if you never told my why that argument matters in relation to the debate as a whole. Sell your impacts and contextualize.

- I'm sure y'all know to do this anyway, but please keep the debate space inclusive. Respect pronouns, give a CW if it's appropriate, and don't be rude. I hope I don't sound like a nerd but I like it when people are nice to each other.

PF-specific:

Ok so I do have some expectations around the content of speeches, which I'll lay out below for full transparency on the perspective I'm bringing to this.

- Summary is the most important speech in my eyes. It is here that the debate starts to collapse in on the most important arguments of the round. A strong way to structure a summary speech would be by refuting anything important that your opponent mentioned in Rebuttal and then telling me what the debate is coming down to, what I should vote for, and why you are winning on those points.

- Final Focus is similar to Summary, except its main focus should be weighing. Tell me the most important voters from the round, and tell me why you ultimately have won on them. No new arguments should be made here, and nothing outside of what you mentioned in Summary either.

LD-specific:

- If this is a value debate, I expect your framework to be upheld or it's gonna be a lot harder to vote for you even if you have good arguments otherwise. This is, of course, unless you can show that your arguments are still true and vote-worthy under your opponent's framework.

- I've only ever done traditional LD so obviously I'm not gonna be super knowledgable about more progressive forms of LD. That said, if you feel more comfortable running progressive stuff, feel free to go for it and just be clear about what you're doing and where it needs to go on my flow. I've competed in and judged some policy so I won't be too lost with policy-style debating.

I was in debate for my entire junior and senior year. I did Lincoln-Douglass, Extemp, and Congress. I have won many awards in all 3.

- As someone who used to occasionally spread in Congress, I am okay with some speed. But make sure you are making your words concise and easy to understand. There’s a difference between arrogance and confidence. We’re all here to have fun while also learning from one another. While you are speaking, if you are showing off an aggressive, patronizing and hostile way, you will not like how I judge you. Be loud, but don’t scream. Walk around and speak to your fellow congresspersons. Own the floor. It’s yours, we’re listening to you. Confidence is your best friend.

-For LD there has been many times where the topic was not of my interest or I had to debate something I personally disagreed with. In this style of debate, you have to be ready to passionately defend both sides even if it does not reflect your views.
With that being said, I’m not biased. I judge off framework. Debate the topic as if you agree with the side you are debating. Memory is your best friend in any form of debate but with LD it’s important. You will be writing down what your opponent says, but at the end of the debate when you have to tell the judge why your claim is superior to your opponent’s, your memory should come in full force. Repeat your opponent’s speech while also listing the faults of their speech and why your claim upholds the revolution. They key is to find faults in someone else’s argument.

- For extemporaneous speaking, the best advice I could give is to make it make sense. Even if you know nothing about the question, try your best to make your answer tie together. Don’t rush your speech and don’t drag it. Go at your pace. Smile at your judge, walk around and pretend you are a salesperson trying to sell them an item.
Make me believe your answer to the question is the only correct answer.

I am a parent judge and judge primarily on the local circuit. I am a practicing attorney and, accordingly, am experienced with evaluating the quality of many arguments. I can flow and will do my best to evaluate all arguments to the best of my ability. The following information may be helpful if I am judging you:

GENERAL:

-Signpost as clearly as possible so that I know exactly where you are on the flow. If I don't know what an argument is supposed to address, it will be difficult for me to weigh it.

-Give clear warrants, impacts, and framework links to all of your arguments to the best of your ability. If your claim has no backing or impact it is unlikely that I will weigh it heavily.

-No spreading. I am relatively inexperienced judging LD and clarity is key. With that said, speed is fine but if you are going too fast for me to understand I will put my pen down.

-Generally, I will vote on the line-by-line but if you give me a blatantly ridiculous argument I will not evaluate it even if it goes completely conceded by your opponent.

-VOTERS ARE A MUST! If you give me specific voters and tell me why you are winning on a specific argument and how it impacts the debate, I am likely to vote for you.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION:

Again, because I am relatively new to judging and LD, I would prefer it if you kept progressive arguments (Ks, Theory, Plans, CPs, etc.) to a minimum. If you feel the need to run a progressive argument, keep technical jargon to a minimum, and explain them to me clearly.

FRAMEWORK

I am a fan of framework debate. Frameworks that have a specific impact calculus are preferable and should be used strategically throughout the debate. If your framework is phil-based, explain it clearly. Further, if the framework debate becomes muddled and more-or-less irrelevant throughout the debate, don't waste my time with it.

I was a high school policy debater, college IPDA debater, and now lawyer. That being said, I can tolerate most styles of debate, but ask that in the age of Covid and online tournaments, you be sure to be as clear as possible when speaking. Even though you normally may be able to go faster, if you can't be as clear, it may benefit you to slow down a bit.

I like big picture, impact calc, why we win analysis. If you run a K but can't evaluate it within the round, I'm not going to evaluate it for you.

Pronouns - he/him

Email - thadflagge@gmail.com

I was a policy debater for Madison Central for 3 years during high school, so that's what I have the most experience with, but I've judged all of the debates.

Generally, I'm tech > truth, and I'll let you do your thing and entertain whatever arguments you decide (as long as they aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

I value respect as well. I want the debaters to be respectful to each other during cross and at other times during the debate.

Policy

I appreciate teams that clearly know the ins and outs of the topic and their strategy. I'll vote for the team that thoroughly explains why they win. I appreciate good impact analysis and very good clash (please don't just say nuclear war and expect to get my ballot without explaining why your DA or case leads to it).

T - I'm tech > truth on T arguments. That being said, I default to the more reasonable interpretation that I receive in the debate unless a team makes the argument why I shouldn't. If you do decide to run T, make sure that you include impacts to your interp, etc.

Ks - I was a K debater for a good bit of my career, so I'm open to any arguments. I'm familiar with most lit on antiblackness, afropess, etc. but again, it's been a while since I've been in a debate round. For the most part, my face will give it away if you have to do any further explaining or something like that.

DAs - I appreciate DAs that are solid on the link level. That being said though, if you're forced to use generics, it's fine, but make sure that they're explained well in later speeches if you have to extend them.

FW - In T debates and K debates, FW, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of the debate. I'll reward the team that does the most effective clash and articulates their arguments the best.

Speed - It's been a while since I've debated, but while I was doing it I was pretty good with speed. To be safe though, if you choose to spread, make sure I'm shared on the case doc and then you can read as fast as you want. Make sure you slow down for anything significant that's not on the document though.

LD

I was a policy debater, so I'm open to hearing more progressive LD debates. If you choose to run something progressive, see the policy section of the paradigm. If not, then just make it accessible to me and I'll give you a fair shot. Make sure there is good clash.

PF

I feel like PF should be the most accessible of the debates; therefore, I won't be as lenient with speed. I'll reward the team who does the best arguing (clash, nuance, etc.).

Ask me.

Lincoln Douglas Debaters: I love to see a strong and continuous link to your Value and Value Criterion throughout your case. I judge by the flow, and do not mind spreading, but will not be able to fairly judge the round if I cannot understand you while spreading. Please be aware of your time, and be respectful during cross. This is not a Presidential Debate. Best of luck, Natalie

I debated in high school for three years, gaining experience in all forms of debate locally and policy, nationally. Despite my policy experience, I prefer that you speak at a rate which is understandable. You can go fairly quickly, but spreading irks me. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your arguments. Other than that, I have few preferences. Ensure that you weigh your impacts--particularly in your final speeches--and emphasise the clash in the debate. I'm perfectly fine with debaters being aggressive, just make sure that aggression doesn't morph into being plain rude. If you have got credible evidence for a somewhat outlandish claim, that's fine with me. It's up to your opponent to discredit it. Just remember to only put forth arguments that are respectful of peoples' lived experience (e.g. no arguing that racism is 'good').

My pronouns are he/they. If you're comfortable sharing pronouns with the group that are perhaps contrary to what society may see you as, please do. And, finally, have fun!

Hi! I'm Karnessia (pronounced car-nee-see-uh). If you're reading this, you're most likely frantically prepping before a debate round, trying to figure out if you can run that K or if I'm ok with spreading. The answer to both questions is likely yes, but my favorite phrase is "make it make sense."

My background: I was a circuit CX debater and later transitioned to LD. I have a bit of experience with PF as well. I later coached parliamentary debate in college.

411:

"How I pull the trigger" --> I likely won't pull the trigger (so to speak) on technicalities unless it's an egregious violation. I'm also not a one drop and you're out type judge. For me, the big picture and the implications of actions in the "real world" are of paramount importance. Again, make it make sense. Paint the world for me that you're asking me to vote for. Show me a world that's genuinely less oppressive, more efficient, than this current one and you're doing well.

If you're going to read a card, be ready to engage it. It's a red flag for me when a debater is asked about a claim made in their card and they stumble through it. As a debater, I was never with the jargon and the posturing that so often comes with debate. Communication is a two-way street. It involves a nuanced understanding of the needs of the speaker and listener. So, break it down for me. Weigh things! Impact it out. And if you're doing LD, please do some value/value criterion weighing/analysis. You don't have to spend a bunch of time with it, but LD is about the values so I want you to engage that too.

I try to be as open-minded as possible, meaning I will most certainly vote for an argument, even if I don't personally agree with the said argument. HOWEVER, I just can't behind arguments that are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Hateful ideas like that don't deserve your breath.

Re: speaker points: Again, clarity is everything! Please be clear on your taglines. And please don't cut your opponent off during cross-examination. I mean, sometimes the ends really don't justify the means. It makes me extremely uncomfortable when people get rude to their opponents out of the blue. To clarify, it's definitely ok to press your opponent to wrap up if they're being long-winded.

Extra: Much of my debate philosophy is informed by my former coaches, Darin Maier and Jharick Shields. I studied under Maier and Shields for 6 years. As a result, I realize my paradigms will sound eerily similar to theirs. They go into many specifics re specific arguments and I generally agree with most of their assessments. I endorse almost 100% of each of their paradigms. I hope I've been clear here, but if you'd like a bit more perspective, viewing theirs may also shed a bit more light on mine.

Hi my name is Christian (he/him) and I am a sophomore on the Harvard CX debate team and did CX debate in high school as well.

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN -cagines21@gmail.com

my experiences

I am most comfortable with K/T/Theory positions. The kritiks i know best are afropess, warren, spillers/hartman of course, however, I've encountered most of the K lit base positions and am willing to evaluate them. Overall, just be sure to explain everything well.

Overview of Args

K v Framework (i dont really default any specific way - i will buy things like impact turns, and debate bad args - but i am also convinced by solid 2nrs on framework )

LARP v LARP - im fine for this but i dont do in depth research about the political implications of the topic - largely just the kritikal ones. keep that in mind while using jargon or abbreviations.

theory/t debates writ large are fine! i dont like friv theory however.

non t affs (esp w black debaters) are super dope and i love to hear them! i think these debates should be conscious about content warnings however. i expect good t-framework interactions.

my least favorite kinds of debate (pls dont make me evaluate these debates sigh)

tricks. full stop. :)

phil is a type of debate i dont know NEARLY enough about - it would be in your best interest to not go for a phil vs phil or phil vs policy round in front of me. however i know phil enough to evaluate it vs kritiks.

disclosure policies

disclosure is probably good, but i definitely air on the side of black debaters not needing to disclose their positions.

debate opinions (take them as you will)

1 - debate is not just a game. yes it is a competition, but it is also a place where POC, and black students express themselves. there are material impacts for black/POC - some of which can show themselves through trigger warnings - dont be violent.

2 - ANY form of racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, lack of trigger warnings, etc -all of which WILL get you downed with an L-20.

3 - i default to competing interps, no rvi's, DTD - the more friv the shell, the lower threshold i have to beat it back. PICs and condo are probably good.

5- PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR QUICK ANALYTICS. i sometimes find myself missing them, esp with the nature of this tournament being online.

5 - please weigh.

6 - other things that will result in you getting the L or/and lower speaks - misgendering your opponent, stealing prep, manipulating ev, reading pess as a non black person, being rude to novices!

things i like to see/good speaks!

1 - collapsing !!

2 - judge instruction

3 -make the round fun or interesting

notes

1 - being toxic throughout the debate is a no

2 - try and have docs ready to go - just so we dont run over time tm - other than that have fun!

3 - if you want to postround - try to keep it constructive! try not to be rude.

My name is Michael Guerra-York, my previous experience consists of 3 years of LD debate and informative speaking. I prefer traditional debate rounds. Do not spread or you will lose. I will flow the round and take my notes after the round. I judge primarily overall presentation and whoever convinces me of their side better. Argumentation is the biggest factor in this. Further, any disrespect will not be tolerated and will result in a loss. Overall, have fun.

Let's have a great round!

Traditional style LD, be respectful in the round. If you speak clearly and are not harassing to your opponent, you will be successful.

I am a parent judge.  I am a traditional style judge.  Pretend you are trying to argue this case in front of your non speech/debate teachers. Your case needs to make sense and be logical... no jargon.    

Speed....I can handle a little speed but if you are going so fast that you are tripping over your words... I am not understanding you.  I have NEVER heard or read your case so if you cannot say it fast enough I cannot listen to it.  If you have an important point to make... go slower! Make sure I hear it.

I like voter issues... make sure to provide a concise summary and voter issues in your last speech.  

My thoughts on debate.  It is a fantastic skill to have that will serve you well.  Talker faster than your audience can listen , using words they don't understand, constantly looking down at your computer, and being rude and condescending to your competitor will not typically treat you well in life.  Debate should be teaching and making you use skills that will serve you well long after tournaments are over.  

Our state doesn't do oral critiques or disclose at the end of the debate.  I will be following this same protocol.   

Be prepared, be articulate, be persuasive, be civil.  

I am a former PF debater, I am flow judge. Don't forget to Weigh arguments. I will flow logic arguments, cards aren't needed for anything.

I debate IPDA in college and have experience judging high school debate.

I will look for lots of signposting throughout the whole round. Please do not expect me to fill in the gaps or assume that I understand what you are arguing. Tell me!

Clear voters and lots of impacts are appreciated.

I can handle speed just make sure your opponent and I can understand you. Make sure your isn't to cover lack of evidence, debate is more than interesting tag lines. I appreciate slower speeches but if you feel more comfortable at a faster speed, do what's best for you.

I do not appreciate being overly assertive or rude in cross-x, I will probably count off in speaks in bit so please keep it civil.

Good luck and have fun!

Have fun and be energetic. Let me know that you want to be here.

Think of me as your everyday person judging your debate. That's what PF is for, right?

I have not been involved in competitive debate for long, but I do have a great deal of experience with argumentation and logic. So, I will be evaluating your arguments for their logical conclusions and based on the evidence you provide and whether or not you are able to attack your opponents arguments with the same quality of argumentation as you present your own.

I don't particularly like spreading. If I cannot understand what you are saying, then I cannot evaluate the points you are making, or hold your opponent responsible for responding to them.

I very much appreciate sign posting, as I also think it helps you stay organized in your thinking. I want to hear specific, direct contentions and clashes. If you start to ramble, adding extraneous information, you will lose me.

email - vl15 at rice dot edu (please add to the email chain)

Have any questions? Ask me.

I did policy debate at St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Mississippi from 2016 to 2020. I also did a semester of NPDA at Rice University.

Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:

- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful to the debate space.

- Outside of the above, though, I feel my role as an adjudicator is to allow debaters to debate how they're comfortable debating - my role is not to impose my predispositions about debate upon others. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.

- That being said, I am predisposed to grant greater credence to clearly articulated and warranted arguments that advance a coherent theory/understanding of how the world functions. I am indifferent as to what mechanism/framework you utilize to advance these arguments.

- To me, the most persuasive speeches have been the ones where people take the time to dwell on important framing issues in the round and provide compelling analysis as to why they're winning there in a straightforward manner.

Policy Affs

- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than most. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.

- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.

- Many policy affirmatives contain, at best, tenuously constructed internal links; teams ought to be unafraid to exploit these weaknesses.

Critical Affs/Framework

- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly. I am fine with non-policy affirmatives being read, but I am less experienced in evaluating these (that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them if that's what you do!).

- Even if the affirmative doesn't affirm the resolution, it is better if it relates to the topic in some manner.

- I'm not all that convinced that procedural fairness is intrinsically valuable, but it is probably an internal link to several important impacts (clash education, the collapse of debate, etc.).

Disadvantages

- Specific analysis is important in selling your scenario. Be detailed in your explanation of the link level and the rest will hopefully follow.

- I prefer that you contextualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative ("turns case" arguments help mitigate external offense from the affirmative!).

Counterplans

- Most counterplans are alright, although I think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable. Delay counterplans are likely abusive.

- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a good theory debate.

- Conditionality is probably good (to an extent).

Theory/Topicality

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Good procedural debates are well-organized, well-warranted, and contain good impact weighing. I like these debates.

Critiques

- Teams that read Ks well are able to (1) explain their theory clearly, (2) explain how their theory directly problematizes the affirmative/the affirmative's theory of the world, and (3) explain how their alternative praxis directly resolves these problematizations.

- I may not have more than a surface-level understanding of your theory.

- Framework is probably important for both the aff and the neg in these rounds.

I debated in high school and also was active in Model UN over 20 years ago. I help out my wife who is a speech and debate coach. My job as a judge is to serve as a neutral party. I would rather a competitor make two (2) or three (3) coherent arguments than run with ten (10) ill-conceived attacks. I will not vote based on a dropped specious argument. For example, if someone drops or fails defined a word such as "is". Only run or attack definitions if they are actually pertinent. The average conversation occurs at sixty (60) words per minute. Some debaters speak up to three hundred (300) words per minute. You would never do this in real life. Do not do it in a debate!! Imagine I am a CEO or an executive within the Intelligence Community. Each competitor should work to provide clear arguments to let the judge make a decision. In real life an "elevator pitch" may be the only time you have with a senior leader.

My background is criminal justice/law enforcement/intelligence community. I hold graduate degrees in public administration and national security studies. I judge based on evidence and arguments. In most cases my range of speaker points is between 25-30. If you get below 25 you were either completely unprepared or did something unethical.

In debate/public forum run with whatever plans you want. It is your round. Non-traditional or "outside the box" arguments are okay. I tend to put more emphasis on a good summary and final focus. Tell me why I should vote for your team. I do not flow the cross. I tend to keep very general notes of the cross. I do not disclose. My ballot is normally submitted very quickly after the round. So you will know who won.

I do not like spreading. A huge part of debate for me is being able to communicate points effectively without having to create an email chain to follow along.

I know some judges do not weigh cross-ex or crossfire, but I think it's some of the most important and pivotal parts of any debate.

Off-time roadmaps are really pointless to me unless you follow them and give a detailed outline of the order, not just "their case, then mine." If you're going to give one, I want a list of the topics you're specifically going to hit (i.e. "Contentions 1-3, Voters 1-4"), and then I want you to follow through with that specified order.

I had lots of experience on the high school circuit, particularly with PF, World's, and Congress, but I am effective at flowing any debate and following lines of reasoning.

Make it make sense; do not just throw out cards without explanation or credentials. I do not care if you have 30 cards in your speeches if none of them connect or have causational links.

I did debate the entirety of high school. Focused on LD but also did PF, Big Questions, Congress, and World Schools at different points. Also did interp and my main focus was speech. Was state semi-finalist and national qualifier in debates.

Both speaking and debate are important to me- speak well so I understand your points.

Please do not get overly caught up in debate style but instead focus on the actual topics at hand. If there is a MAJOR issue, sure point it out, but most other technical issues I will catch anyway.

Do not be rude/condescending to your opponents. This is a fun activity, and I know it can get heated, but being rude won't make me vote for you. Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory is not accepted.

Have strong links between evidence and logic. Highlight your impact. I don't care how much evidence you have if you don't tell me why it matters.

Speaker points are determined by clarity, professionalism, and overall contribution to the debate.

LD:

- Don't forget to argue value and criterion, but it also shouldn't be the only thing you argue

- Please do not try to make LD into Policy. They are separate events. Don't spread.

PF:

- Do not become overly stylized or complex. Anyone should be able to understand your arguments without prior knowledge.

I did debate all four years of high school. I competed in PF and Congress, as well as interp and limited prep events. I was the 2019 State Champion in PF and Duet Acting, as well as national quarter finalist in congress at NSDA in 2019.

Speaking and debate are both important to me. Do not get caught up in the speaking style of your opponents, just address their arguments.

Do not spread, and for PF your arguments should be accessible. It’s called public forum for a reason, and should be accessible to laymen.

When addressing your opponents be respectful. I understand this activity can get heated, but it should still be cordial.

LD should address value criterion as well as the points presented by your opponent. Do not let the debate focus on solely one or the other.

speaker points are determined by clarity and overall contribution to the debate.

Your links between evidence and points should be very clear. I don’t care how much evidence you have if you don’t explain it’s importance.

most importantly have fun and be ready to learn. Despite this activity being about competition the goal should be for you guys to learn and be exposed to new ideas. Have fun and be respectful!

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

Taken from Tyler Gamble's paradigm, but holds mostly true for me:
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often that not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained...
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Taken from Ellen Ivens-Duran's paradigm:
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for (5) years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
...

Hi, I'm Gillian! I did speech and debate for 2 years in high school, and competed in a range of events (PF, Congress, extemp, duo, prose, informative). I write pretty detailed ballots, but if you have any remaining questions, you can always contact me at gillianemeyers@gmail.com.

In general, please be polite and respectful at all times––any personal attacks against your opponents, rude behavior, unwarranted interruptions, etc. will count against you.

Speech and debate should be an activity that's accessible to everyone. Please explain everything clearly, make sure your logic follows, and don't spread; if I can't understand you, I can't judge you. It's totally fine if you speak quickly, just make sure to enunciate.

For debate, I would rather you be accessible than technical––kritiks, theory, and jargon won't help your case unless you explain them thoroughly. Research-backed arguments with strong links will serve you best. In PF cross, please don't hog questions (unless your opponent doesn't have any to ask you). Address all of your opponents' contentions, make sure I know why I should vote for you, most of all weigh your impacts!

For speech events, have fun and be creative! For extemp in particular, be expressive and personable, and don't forget to explain the impacts of your argument.

Debate can be pretty intense, but at the end of the day, it's still something you're doing for fun. Best of luck!

I did CX, LD, and a little PF and Congress in high school, though my debate experience is mostly limited to Mississippi (traditional debate). I also was an octafinal at NSDA in HI, and state co-champion for duet acting my senior year.

General Paradigm:

* Speed is okay as long as I can understand you and you're taking time to actually back up what you're saying.

* I assign speaker points based on overall contribution to the debate, tactically and in how compelling you are.

* Make sure to have good tech and counter arguments down the ballot, but I'm not going to consider tech if your argument is just too out there (no "jellyfish will fix our police system" pls).

* Feel free to have creative arguments, but please make it easy for me to flow and make it explicitly clear why you think I should vote for you instead of the other guys. (Weight impacts!)

* Fairness is a thing. Just be nice to each other :)

CX:

* I'm from traditional CX. That's what I'm used to and what I like, so try to keep that in mind as much as possible. It's also been three years since I've done CX in earnest, so I'm rusty, especially on the jargon.

* If you can help it, try not to spread. Speed is fine, though, as long as I can understand what you're saying clearly. If I can't catch what you said, it's tough for me to understand your argument.

* Please tag your arguments, and slow down when you do. A clean flow is a good flow.

* I only read what you read.

* Every case doesn't have to be about the apocalypse. Unless you have a strong link, please don't tell me about the dead rising from the grave, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc. (Be creative with arguments, just make sure you have good links!)

* I'm open to but skeptical of kritiks. If you run one, be sure to be very clear on why it's relevant as to how I should vote, with specific links to the opposing team, no "Cap K and run away."

* If you run Death Good, it might be kinda funny but I probably won't vote for you.

LD:

* Not too familiar with progressive LD (remember, Mississippi), but if that's what you know how to run then feel free, just know you'll have to explain things to me and be very clear about what you're doing.

* In a V/C debate, make sure to uphold your value.

PF:

* Accessibility of arguments is really important here. This is a "public" forum.

* Use Final Focus for the final focus please.

* Speaking is more important to me here than in other debate events, but arguments are still what matters most.

Debate is an intellectual expression of the arts of reading, writing, speaking, and listening.

A strong debater presents well organized, intellectual content that rises to the level of artful, expressive and receptive communication.

The flow of the debate should be simple for me, or any other judge, to record if the debater's content is smoothly and succinctly presented. The debater(s) with the strongest content will earn the ballot. The artistic use of speaking, reading, writing, and listening add tremendous strength to any public speaking opportunity. The refined use of these tools advance the debate from weak assertions or argumentation to the classical expression of competing viewpoints found in all forms of debate.

If you are speaking faster than I can write, I'll put my pencil down so I can listen intently. At this point it would be wise for a debater to speak slower. Then I could return to flowing the debate so I have this documentation to review when completing the ballot and to help me make the right decision.

I did policy in hs and currently do British Parli in college, for policy debate I heavily focus and emphasize impact weighing in deciding my ballot. I want to hear not only why you won the round but why your case leads to a better world, outcome, or meets a value best (or rather, why the opponent's case does not).

I will listen to topicality arguments however they need to be fleshed out with good link work. If you do run topicality, please tell me the exact thing your opponent has done that is untopical. Don't read a generic topicality file without telling me what part of their case it applies to. In order to vote on topicality I also need to see why topicality should be weighed above anything else in the round.

I'm decent at keeping up with taglines but please explain what a card is instead of just referencing it. For example, if halfway through the round you say "our fox 2014 card trumps their cnn 2013 card" I might be slightly confused unless you say specifically what those 2 cards refer to.

Overall, I prioritize a clean, civil debate above everything. Please be respectful to each other during rounds and have fun.

Also i'm okay with some speed but please don't spread too fast for me to understand you.

I'm just a judge.

1. I have some minor auditory processing issues---so excessive speed is a bit hard for me to understand.
2. No racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/xenophobia/ableism/discrimination of any kind.
3. No rudeness/personal attacks.

Congrats on being here at NCFL! I am excited to judge!

I teach rhetorical analysis and argumentation; consequently, I carry that awareness with me in my judging. I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my opinion of arguments.

In judging LD, I concentrate on the values and contentions; I am more excepting of far-reaching contentions as long as you can make the connections. Definitions aren't everything, but I like to know which ones you are using; subtle differences matter. My focus will be on the actual argument, the claims and rebuttals, and the crosses in the debate. I find "arguments" that rely on exhorting the rules of the process to be disingenuous.

In PF, I appreciate seeing a cohesiveness in the team. I focus on the structure of the argument, are adequate supports provided, and is everything rebutted. Again, I do my best not to let prior knowledge impact my decision. Unnecessary speaking over each other and attempting to drown each other out is uncivilized and irritating. It also works against following your argument.

In Policy, I am looking for a logical argument that should pass, and for the negation, I am comfortable with nearly all on-topic and off-topic measures. I do find continuous definition attacks to be pedantic. As for spread, not an issue. I have clear hearing and have taught English to non-native speakers, so enunciation is not really an issue.

Hello debaters! Thanks for reading my paradigm! I'm a retired debater; I competed in PF for two years and went on to compete in college in an extemp-style of debate called IPDA. My experience in LD is very limited and within the confines of a traditional circuit. As such, I'm willing to listen to progressive argumentation like plans or kritiks, but you're really going to have to explain them to me. I know absolutely nothing about policy.

I frown upon spreading. I believe that debate is meant to be an educational exercise that equips you to succeed in the "real-world." Spreading is, in my view, almost always antithetical to that goal. I will try my very best to keep up, but I'm not above setting my pen down and not flowing until you become coherent.

*I will not vote for arguments I don't understand.* It's your job to give me thorough explanations. Remember that I've not been researching your respective topic for the last month and will need logical explanations and warranting. I need you to walk through why your argument or evidence wins my ballot.

I'm a flow judge; I will only consider things actually said by debaters in the round and am looking for complete arguments including claims, warrants, and impacts.

I don't flow cross, so if something important happens, it won't be on my flow unless you bring it up in a speech.

Things that will automatically cost you the round and/or speaks:

Unnecessary rudeness

Falsifying evidence

Not having fun! :)

I debated Public Forum for four years in HS and attempted to compete in Prose for a semester during my Senior year.

Overarching things:

Truth > Tech: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are hypotheticals so I generally evaluate the round based on what's presented regardless of the truthfullness of the argument. Saying that, if you're gonna try to convince me that aliens exist or the Illuminati have my mind in a vat, you'd better have some pretty convincing evidence. Remember, the more realistic your argument, the more likely I am to value it more highly in the round.

Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Crossfire: I will NOT flow cross. Cross is a way for debaters to clarify arguments with each other, so arguments or ideas presented in cross must be extended throughout the rest of the debate. Don't use cross as an extra speech, use it for setup for later speeches.

Other things:
- When time stops, flowing stops. Speaking over the time limit will not add anything to the flow or factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; avoid spreading if possible
- If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. It is your job as a debater to present yourself in a clear manner to me, so if you speak to quickly, to a point where I cannot understand you, you will lose speaks and my flow won't contain all the arguments you mention.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense
- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
- Cross fire should be an exchange b/w the two debaters. I don't want long speeches in it.
- Star Wars references are greatly appreciated and will gain some clout with me.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before we start the round/email me at dfroger1@go.olemiss.edu

Good luck and make the most of every round!

Hi all!

My name is Sarah Grace, and I'm a sophomore at Georgetown University studying International Politics with a concentration in Foreign Policy Processes and a minor in the Korean Language. If you're a junior/senior and you have any Georgetown-related questions, or questions about how debate can help you with the college application process, regardless of your school affiliation, I'm happy to help. You can best reach me at sgs100@georgetown.edu!

As for my speech and debate background, I debated all four years of high school. My three main events were Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Original Oratory, and Extemporaneous speaking. I'm the most experienced with Lincoln-Douglas Debate - I was both the 2021 State Champion and also competed at multiple national tournaments. I've competed in LD, PF, and Policy. I did OO sophomore-senior year, and I'm familiar with most speech events. My blind spot is interp.

This community has meant a lot to me, and I'm excited to be able to give back to it through judging, so I wish you all good luck!

Overall Notes

1.DO NOT SPREAD.

2.I will keep the official time, but you can also time yourself.

3. I give good speaker points, but you are only going to get a 30 if you were perfect in every way.

Debate Paradigm

1. No ad hom attacks/insults/slurs/etc. Be sensitive about the content you are debating.

2. You may give an off-time road map if you want.

3. I look for clarity, signposting, and solid logic in rebuttals. Please let me know WHERE you are and WHAT contention you are addressing. If you are addressing your opponent's first contention, please tell me so I can note it on my flow.

4. In rebuttal, give me impact calculus. Tell me how I am supposed to determine who has the more important impact (probability, severity, scope, magnitude). Please compare the affirmative/pro and negative/con worlds and tell me which one is better.

6. I like to see key voting issues that address major areas of clash in the final rebuttal speeches.

7. I can handle speed, but you need to enunciate. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD.

8. If you use cards in rebuttal, don't just read them out, explain why it matters. Saying "Remember my Williams 2020 card" isn't enough. You should give me some additional analysis as to why it is relevant for your rebuttal.

LD Specific

1. I want to see value/value-criterion debate. Every contention should link back to the V and VC.

2. Give key voting issues in the 1NR and 2AR.

3. Logic-based arguments are fine. That being said, having evidence to back up your claims is also important. If you are saying something that is not entirely obvious, but pin it as "logic-based" I will weigh that in the round.

4. I will weigh the framework debate heavily if it is not collapsed, and if you do collapse the framework, you still need to make it clear what lens I'm judging the round through. If you win on framework, I still want to see solid debate on the contention level.

5. A bad CX won't lose you the round, but if you make a mistake/concession in CX and the opponent brings it up in rebuttal, I will weigh it.

Policy Specific

1. Please add me to the email chain. My Gmail is sgshurden@gmail.com.

2. I'm not super familiar with policy debate, so please make your arguments as accessible as possible. I need to understand what you are saying to flow it.

Congress

1. I treat Congress like a debate event. This means solid evidence, analysis, addressing other people in the chamber, and relevant questioning.

2. I don't like to see the SAME person stand up to give an aff and then stand up to give a neg right after. Pick a side and stick with it.

Overall Speech Paradigm

Dec, OO, Info

1. I'm familiar with Dec, OO, and Info. I know what the conventions are in each event, but in general, I will look for who the better speaker is.

2. Please don't judge how well you are doing based on my facial expressions.

3. Organization and evidence still counts. Even in speech. If I am confused about where you are, or the relevance of a point/piece of evidence, I will consider that when I rank you.

4. The speech I like the most won't necessarily be the one that gets the 1.

Extemp

1. Organization - The well-organized extemp speeches I've seen have a solid intro with a thesis, three points with several sources to back them up, and then a conclusion that links back to the intro.

2. Speaking - this comes back to who is the better speaker (inflection, tone, etc.).

3. Content - if you have 10 sources and they're all from the New York Times, I think you're probably making them up. Give me the month and year for each source. Ultimately, the analysis is more important to me than the source itself.

Impromptu

I look for most of the same things I do in extemp: organization, speaking, and content/analysis. Less emphasis on sources for obvious reasons.

Interp

I've never done interp before. If you get me as a judge, I have no idea what interp conventions are. I'll be judging on who I thought was the better speaker.

I am an attorney and my current occupation is as a Hearing Officer for the Mississippi Ethics Commission. AKA, I am an administrative judge and will evaluate your debates in a similar manner as a case pending in front of me. That is, I will make my decision based on the logic of the arguments and evidence presented. You should consider me to be a lay judge in a traditional circuit.

DO NOT SPREAD. (This includes policy.) I CANNOT handle speed. if I don't understand you, you haven't given me anything to consider. Time constraints are in place to force you to create your best and most persuasive argument. Accordingly, I give the most weight to clear explanations and logical arguments supported by credible evidence. Do not simply read your "cards." If you use jargon, give definitions. I will also evaluate the credibility of your arguments.

I expect relevance - Your arguments need to DIRECTLY address the resolution.

I also expect clash - I'm looking for you to address what is presented in each other's cases.

Finally, be polite and respectful as you debate. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

Good luck!

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

Experience

I debated Policy for three years in high school, and competed at NCFL and NFL nationals two times each.

General

I will almost certainly not vote on your K.

Aff has to be Topical, even if it is a K. Topicality arguments shouldn't just be a definition.

GIVE ME VOTER ISSUES. If you don't, I'll frame the debate on what your opponent gives me. If your opponent also gives me nothing, I'll default to impacts.

Speed

I can follow almost any speed as long as you signpost properly and slow down on your tags. (Seriously, SIGNPOST. Every single speech. If I don’t know where to flow something, I can’t tell that you didn’t drop an argument.)

Speaks

I (obviously) award speaker points based on your actual speaking ability, but I also heavily consider decorum. I understand that spreading can get loud, but if you yell at your opponents (or me), expect your speaker points to be pretty low (Like, abysmally low. Seriously, do not yell at us).

Performance/Ks/Weird Stuff

My stance has changed a bit on the below in that I prefer not to hear any Ks, however if you decide to do it anyway, consider the below. In addition to this, if your opponent is comfortable with your K and there is still a substantive debate, I won't vote against you solely because you ran a K.

___

I’m okay with non-standard debates as long as it is coherent and respectful. Appeals to me based on your plight as a member of some marginalized group will not work (Appeals to me based on MY plight as a member of some marginalized group will work even less.) Feel free to be creative, but don’t try to make it personal.

Articulate really well what the voting issues are on your performances/Ks. If I don’t know why I’m supposed to be voting for you, I won’t.

Don’t assume I know the literature.

Other

I will NEVER vote based on things that have happened in other rounds, things your coach told you, or things that you were told at debate camps. Keep this debate within the realm of this specific debate. (Even if you’ve debated this team before and have won every time.)

Stealing prep: Don’t do it. I may not call out on it in round(I also might), but I will 100% dock your speaker points.

During YOUR speeches: If you/your partner is helping you during a speech, please keep it to a minimum. It's distracting and it makes you look bad. Try whispering or passing a piece of paper. If you're basically giving your partner's speech, I'll dock speaker points from both of you.

Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.

My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.

General:

1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.

2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.

3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.

4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.

5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.

World Schools:

1- To me, Worlds is all about your ability to characterize and explain what is likely to be true. Examples are useful, but they need robust warranting behind them. The quality of your arguments matter a lot.

2- Be comparative! Don't just explain why your world is good, but why it's comparatively better than your opponents'.

3- The third and reply speeches should crystallize the debate into a few central clashes. Make sure to weigh between clashes as well as between opposing mechanisms within the same clash.

4- Principled arguments are really cool, but make sure to explain why your principle comes before consequences.

5- Content and strategy matter more to me than style. Style is important, but improvements in style quickly become less and less important after a certain threshold is reached (you're understandable, speaking at a moderate pace, and not reading from your paper).

Public Forum:

1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.

2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.

2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.

Policy:

1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.

2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.

4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.

5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.

6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.

7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.

8- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.

Other Events:

1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.

2- Have fun!

Inexperienced with judging, will be taking notes as best as possible.

Avoid using technical terms as if I'm not familiar with them I may not be able to evaluate your argument as well.

Avoid speed- if I can't catch what you're saying, I won't flow it or use it to judge the round.

I'd like to see clash- adapt to what your opponents said, don't just restate your arguments in the exact same way.

Weigh the debate and terminalize your impacts.

Everything in Final Focus should've been in summary, unless you're responding to something new from second summary (which shouldn't happen).

Courtesy, clarity, and connection. Please be polite, speak to make your points or performance clear to the audience (the judges), and (in debate) explicitly articulate the connection of your evidence to your point(s).

Speech & Debate is as much an educational activity as it is a competitive activity, so my comments will be focused on what seemed to work or not work within the context of what it appeared you were trying to accomplish.

I give only a brief paradigm here because I do NOT want you to attempt to tailor your presentation to a bunch of imagined traits and preferences I may or may not possess. Run YOUR case; give YOUR performance - I will judge and comment upon the presentation's face value to the best of my ability.

Hey! My name is Faraaz Yousuf, I mostly did Policy in high school with a little bit of LD. I look forward to judging your debates!

Just some top-level things, don't be rude, don't be unethical with evidence (i.e. falsifying, clipping, etc.), really just make sure to be respectful during rounds and there shouldn't be any issues at all.

Policy Debate/General Paradigm

Good organization and clarity are extremely important. Make sure your arguments are well explained, and having a consistent structure in your speech helps immensely with judging a debate. Be thorough with your arguments, make sure you lead me through why you're winning the round. Make sure you do impact calculus, things like weighing probability and magnitude. I'm down to vote for most arguments, just explain. Be persuasive.

Speed is fine, do make sure you're being clear as well. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing. It should be pretty clear when I either stop typing or writing things down. *As a later addendum to this I've been a little removed from judging debate and don't quite have the same ear for spreading, I should still comprehend you for the most part but I would def take it down a notch, or at least ramp up in speed as a speech or round progresses to allow me to better acclimate to the speed (which is also a good tip in general in my experience debating).

I try to avoid giving nonverbal cues, but reactions do slip out of me sometimes so do keep an eye out for that.

I'll try my best to evaluate rounds based on the approaches articulated in them, but I do tend to default to a policy-making perspective when nothing else is offered. I'm open to other approaches, just the explanation should be clear, though that should be ideal for any argument in a debate.

I feel like I tend to lean truth over tech, but as long as theory arguments have a well-developed explanation I'm perfectly comfortable voting for them. Just because I tend to lean truth doesn't mean you can hand wave away any theory arguments.

I think K's are good, I just may not extremely familiar with whatever literature you're basing it off of so the explanation may have to be a little more in-depth for me to get it.

I like to think I'm decently equipped to judge most rounds if you have any questions at all feel free to ask me before the round starts!