Judged at a few local CFLs over the years. Seen everything from face-paced LD rounds to some fierce Extemp speeches. I am a lay judge, will follow the argumentation but I won't pick up everything you say if you are spreading. I pay close attention to the content of the speech, regardless of the event. I have a strong background in many different areas and routinely follow the news, so I am well versed on many current events.

On a more personal note, I have lots of experience helping out with my local debate team, as my daughter has been an active member since her freshman year. I know how much work you all put in to have success, and I am excited to see it all come to fruition in round!

My best advice: stay calm, cool, and collected. Don't dance around your points, be clear and direct with your reasoning. In debate rounds, clearly show me why your side is stronger, in both impact and logic. In speech rounds, entertain me and don't be afraid to crack a joke or two. Overall, confidence is key!

Good luck to all the competitors! Everyone get ready to see some lengthy ballots!

Congress:

Clear points including cited evidence.

Want to see advancement of the bill.

Your speech should stand up to questioning.

Hi! I’m Nick.

Did Congress for 4 years in HS (2017-2021), current college student and debate coach.

Feel free to email: nicholaschen314@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Policy

Currently a middle school policy coach @ WUDL (~1 year) but am relatively new to the event otherwise. Expect me not to be very familiar with the topic + any literature. Quality over quantity. I often find myself voting for clearly warranted arguments delivered slowly with some cogent analysis attached over multiple cards spammed at supersonic speed. Clear signposting is greatly appreciated. Give me a role of ballot and tell me how I should evaluate the round.

Congress:

My overall philosophy is that Congress is a strategic game where the winner best advances the debate. Advancing the debate means creating opportunities for future speakers to give interesting speeches, usually by engaging deeply and efficiently with the existing debate. In general, this means I like the things that most congress judges like (clash, framing, good warranting, etc.) and dislike the things that most congress judges dislike (rehash, name-dropping, unwarranted arguments, etc.). I rank speeches given at all points in the round equally. Do your job well and you can get my one, whether you're a sponsor or a late-round speaker.

*A note on decorum. Be inclusive and kind, especially towards competitors who are not as familiar with the national circuit or parliamentary procedure. I've seen Robert's rules of order used as a cudgel to previous question someone out of a speech one too many times. The same goes for all other forms of backroom politicking. Treat your competitors like fellow human beings.

Some specific notes:

- Content >> Delivery I’ve found that I judge almost exclusively on content. Delivery matters to the extent that it helps me understand your content.

-I reward flips and speaking earlier than intended extremely highly. Expect lots of brownie points, especially for early round flips that get the debate going.

-You will never get punished for people ignoring your argument unless your argument was inherently non-interactive. If other speakers repeat an argument which you have refuted I will notice and this will be reflected in my ranks.

-Please quantify your impacts. Congressional debaters have become chronically reliant on nonspecific cards which then link to super vague impacts. This leaves us (judges) having to weigh between “many” and “a lot” or some other pair of meaningless adjectives. Speakers who call out this ambiguity and give me quantification will always get ranked highly.

Some pet peeves on sources:

-Stop citing cards which are just warrants. Just because some NYT opinion writer says it doesn't mean it's true.

-Stop not citing cards when making constructive arguments. I accept the utility of warrant level take-outs when refuting but you cannot just make a new claim (especially a claim that would take out a significant portion of either side of the debate) and expect me to buy a hand-wavy warrant in lieu of a card especially when your speech centers around weighing.

-Stop defaulting to thousands/millions of Americans starving or dying as your impact especially when the links get tenuous. Don’t just throw it in if you haven’t properly carded or warranted the impact. Not everything has to lead to the end of the world.

*A note on PO’s: I rank solid PO’s below all the great speakers in a round which usually means you’ll get my 3 - 4 in prelims, 4 - 6 in outrounds, 5+ in finals if you do everything right. I consider POing a strategic decision (i.e. you PO when there isn’t a good way to win the round speaking) which means that I will reward PO’s more in weaker rounds. TLDR: PO a weak round and you’ll get ranked high, PO a great round with lots of unique ground and you’ll get ranked low. Obvious exception when no one wants to PO.

IF YOU DID NOT GET FEEDBACK ON YOUR BALLOT FROM ME, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT EVANRFELDMAN@GMAIL.COM

Background:

HS Competitor at Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies (SOCES) from the West LA district in California. High School Competitive Experience : Mainly in Congress, Impromptu, Parli, Spar and Duo. Qualified to states in Congress, Duo, Original Prose and Poetry, and TOC bid in congress.

Collegiate and Professional Competitive Experience:

CC Competitor at Los Angeles Valley College (LAVC) from AFA D1

Uni Competitor at Eastern Michigan University (EMU) from AFA D5

Pro Competitor at Archers, Acolytes, and Associates from LA

DEBATE:

1. Parli: NPTE Qualifier, 2nd seed and Semifinalist at CA State (2016) , 8th best Speaker & Semifinalist at Phi Rho Pi Nats (2016), Awarded best CC Parli team in the country as voted on by competitors (Bossard Twohy Award 2016).

2. IPDA: Semifinalist and 9th Spkr at CA State(2017), Co-National Champion at NOFC (2021)

IE'S/SPEECH:

CA Community College (CCCFA) States: (2016-2017) 2x champ in IMP(1 picket-fence) and Extemp, Finalist in ADS/STE (2016). Individual Sweepstakes Winner in non interp events (Tabor Collins Award 2016)

MI States (MISL) : Runner Up in Imp and Poetry, 3rd in Extemp and Persuasion, Individual Sweeps Winner (2021). State Champ in Poetry and Extemp, 3rd in After Dinner Speaking (2022)

Phi Rho Pi Nationals: Finalist in Imp Semifinalist in Ext (2016).

AFA: Quarter in ADS/STE and Poetry (2022), Semi in Persuasion/Oratory (2021)

NFA: 2x Semi in ADS/STE (2021-2022), Quarterfinal in Persuasion/Oratory (2021) , 2x Octofinal in both Impromptu and Poetry (2021-2022)

NOFC: National Champ in Persuasion & in Poetry, Silver in ADS/STE (All 2021)

Interstate Oratorical Association (IOA): National Qualifier (2021)

Professional Speech and Debate Association (PSDA): Season 2 Champion in Prepared Speech, Runner Up in Spontaneous Debate and Spontaneous Speech, 3rd in Indy Sweeps (All 2022)

Coaching Experience:

Coached middle school speech and debate for nine years, high school for eight years, elementary school for three years and community college for two years.

Congress: Champions/Runners Up at Harvard, Stanford/Palm Classic, NSDA, CHSSA State, CSULB (Jack Howe) and La Costa Canyon (Winter Classic). Finalists at Yale, Berkeley, UK Season Opener, MLK, Nova Titan, The Tradition, TOC Digital Series, ASU, Palos Verdes Peninsula, CMSF States, TOC, MS TOC

Impromptu: Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, CHSSA States, CCCFA State, Phi Ro Pi Nats, NSDA Nats

PARLI: Finalists at CSUN, Grossmont, Pasadena City College, UOP, CCCFA States, Phi Ro Pi Nats

Extemp: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, ASU, Yale, CCCFA State

POI: Champion/Runner Up at CHSSA State/ NSDA Nats Finalists at Stanford, Berkeley, NIETOC

OO: Finalists at CSULB, La Costa Canyon, CSUF, CLU, CHSSA States

THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW WHEN I JUDGE YOU:

1. Role of the debate space: This activity should be a safe and inclusive place for EVERYBODY. I am open to progressive and identity based arguments, and I want ya'll to be comfortable in the round. Although I've faced my own discrimination as a member of the Jewish community, I will never know what it's like to deal with the marginalization that POC, Women/Womxn, and the LGBTQ face on a daily basis. Thus, if there is anything I can do to make you feel more comfortable in the debate space, please let me know.

2. Evidence

A. Recency

I am a sucker for recent evidence, the more topical the the evidence the better. It's hard for me to trust that evidence from 6 or more years ago is still relevant (everything 1/1/2017 and beyond is fine until 12/31/2022).

B. Citing

Please at LEAST cite the year of the evidence, month is fine, and date is only necessary if it's extremely recent or if the date has some significance. Each contention should have evidence (this also applied in Extemp, Info, OO/Pers).

C. Sourcing

PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE INFO WAS PUBLISHED. Johnson 20' could easily be someone's parent or a random blog writer. Tell me if it's from The Brookings Institute, or Vox, or PBS, or the National Institute of Health. I also value source diversity, don't repeat the same publication if possible, some other publication has probably said the exact same thing.

D. Conflicting evidence

I am happy to hear arguments about why yours is better than your opponents' (Recency of publication, larger sample size, more diverse sample size, more credible publication, misuse of evidence, conflict of interest in publishing etc).

E Quality/Bias:

I personally don't like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Wire, and other sources that have had too many problems with fake news. I won't accept evidence from conspiracy theory or white supremacist sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, The Daily Stormer, or anything from Q-ANON.

3. Delivery:

A. Speed: I have a fine motor skill issue that prevents me from flowing super fast. I will listen to some speed, but not full spreading. I can handle more speed than lay, but less than the avg flow judge. If I call speed 4x and you don't slow down you will lose the round.

I am less willing to deal with speed in Congress, IPDA or BQ where the point is to be conversational.

B. Speaker Points: Rounds should be fun. I want ya'll to be able to use your wit and humor, thus I will take that into account if you are looking for a way to improve your speaker points. I like puns, Childish Gambino, Hamilton, Lil Dicky, Rick and Morty, sports, and silly analogies. You won't win just for being funny, but you'll up your spks for sure.

C. Standing/Movement: I expect all competitors to stand when they speak (not required during cx). It's better for your vocal projection, confidence and overall presentation. If you are doing Congress, Spar or an IE (not including interp), I expect you to also do a speaker's triangle/three step walk.

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS ONLY: Please don't look down at the camera, place it on a higher platform so that it can be at eye level when you stand. Make sure you look at the camera to simulate eye contact and not stare at yourself or a second monitor... Also please make sure you are fully in camera when you're speaking.

4. Argumentation

Types of Arguments I will and won't listen to

A. All events:

Debate is a game so run what you want, but here is a tip sheet if you have me.

a. Counter-plans: Make sure they aren't perm-able, that they are non topical and that they don't bite into your own disadvantage

b. Perm: Show why both plan and cp can be done. I won't allow everything to be permed just because it's a "test of competition"

c. Ideology: I'm not only from a metropolitan city, I'm from a metropolitan COASTAL State, not only am I from a metropolitan COASTAL state, but that State is California... you do the math on where my politics lie. Jokes aside, speech and debate is already a progressive activity, but I'm a 20-something year old adult from the most liberal place in the country who is an intersectional feminist and is part of a marginalized minority...like I'm pretty far left. I will listen to conservative leaning arguments, but be careful. I recommend framing them within a progressive lens, and how your impact will protect the disenfranchised.

d. Structure: If you do a status quo, link/change, impact type structure you improve your chances of me voting for you/ranking you well. Also, if you're using an opponents argument against them SAY TURN. If you don't have an argument to turn it, then de-linking (showing why it doesn't apply) or saying it's non unique (that their impact is already happening without the resolution/topic) is helpful. I really appreciate when people number their responses.

It's in your best interest to give impacts (why we should care/the result of your argument). Please state the name and number of your contentions. Say the word impact, tell me what the TANGIBLE impact is, then explain it (hopefully with evidence).

Event Specific Notes

A. PARLI, PF, LD, CX, IPDA and BQ Only..... If you have me in congress, keep scrolling.

a. Conditionality: Kick whatever you want as long as there isn't offense on it. I'll listen to condo theory

b. Topicality: If you're being abused by the aff, run it. I'm also okay with seeing it as time strategy. Show the articulated abuse.

c. Reverse Voting Issues: They usually aren't very persuasive but I will buy them more than the average flow judge.

d. Spreading Theory: If you're calling speed and/or clear and the team refuses to slow down I will probably vote for this if you do an okay job running it.

e . Kritik's: Will listen to them if the structure is very organized. I want to be told the role of the ballot, the framework, the link, the impact, the alt etc... I've only voted on four k's ever.

f. No New Points in Rebuttal Theory: I'm a fan, but you have to earn it.

g. No Neg Fiat: I'll laugh, but hey, if you can do it, good for you.

h. Trichotomy: Bleh, you better make some really compelling arguments.

Overall: Be organized, use sub-points, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. Hard for me to vote for you if you don't give me voters. HAVE FUN.

B. Congress ONLY:

1. CLASH is the most important part of congress.

Even if you're the first speaker, tell me what opposition speakers are going to say. When you CLASH, tell me which opponents you are responding to directly (Senator Trololol or Representative DankMemez YOU said). Yes I am okay if you clash with members of your side as long as you don't contradict yourself.

2. DO NOT repeat points made by others without contributing to the conversation.

If someone makes a point that is even REMOTELY similar to yours, you can't just pretend that they didn't say it. Like if you have an economic point about job growth and someone else on your side talked about gdp growth you can address them (Senator Renegade YOU brought up how this legislation increases the nation's gdp, and while I agree that this is important, we also need to understand the economic implications of how this bill impacts job growth).

3. Speaking order

Any person can win from any spot. However, the later you go, the more I expect you to clash, and the more I expect your points to be unique. If you are nervous about clashing or have generic stock points, I'd recommend going early and predicting the round. If you're one of the last speakers to speak on a bill, please compare the aff and neg (like a two world scenario), and give summaries of why your side has won.

4. Organization

A. Within a speech

Attention Getting Device, Quick Preview (pass/fail this bill and there's a few reasons why), Contentions and Clash (preferable to do them as the same time), Quick Conclusion.

B. Within an argument

State the name of your argument as you start that contention. Then you can kinda do whatever you want as long as you explain why your argument connects back to the bill and clash if possible.

If you do a status quo, link/change (if we pass/fail this legislation then), impact type structure I'll be impressed.

5. PO'S

Be efficient, be personable, be confident, be organized, follow Parliamentary Procedure, and it's in your best interest to tell us how many questions/speeches we got in while you presided.

Congress Overall: Overall: Be organized, CLASH WITH OTHER SPEAKERS, number your responses, HAVE FUN.

To those running the tournament: My preferred styles to judge are Congressional, IPDA, and I'm happy to judge forensics/speech. Putting me in policy is a bad idea and I don't like policy at all. In terms of Individual Events, I do best with Humorous, Duo, and Dramatic Interpretation, and worst with Poetry.

To competitors: Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ableism, and hate speech of any kind will earn an immediate loss of my ballot. The most important thing to me in a round is that you respect not only me, but your opponent, other judges, spectators, and anyone else. Please don't spread. If I wanted to try to make sense of spreading, I'd do policy. I don't do policy, so I don't want to hear spreading. Please just have mercy and talk at a decent pace. I have no preference in how you present your argument, just do it well.

I'm your classic lay judge. I don't flow but I will take notes and listen to everything you say.

Some pointers that will help you to get my ballot:

- Don't be rude in any way; keep the debate civil

- Don't speak as fast as my daughter; be clear and be persuasive

- Don't "card dump," I'd rather be persuaded with logic than with a piece of evidence

Hi, this is her daughter Amanda. This isn't a round to read anything weird or try to win strictly on the flow. Front-lining in second rebuttal vs second summary does not matter; if you forget to extend a turn or piece of defense in summary but then go for it in final, she won't care. She just wants a clear, consistent argument the whole round and to be persuaded with good speeches.

Hi! Son of judge here. I would describe my dad as a flay judge that leans more towards lay. He will vote off of content (he won't drop you for speaking style) but he won't necessarily vote off the flow. If I were you I would prioritize winning the narrative debate and just having a very clear warrant story rather than winning off of technical extension. Even though he isn't a flow judge, he takes notes and tends to be pretty decent at understanding arguments even if he won't hold you accountable for extending them cleanly.

Progressive Args: He is willing to listen to anything really, but he's lay. If you run a Kritik of some kind that links to the topic, you should be fine so long as you just treat it like a normal argument and weigh it as "morality" rather than calling it a K. If you're running shells that are off topic (disclosure, paraphrasing, dates etc) or say "the resolution isn't important, debate XYZ instead" he will drop you instantly and be in a bad mood all day, so don't do that for my sake. He believes that debating a topic is about persuading him that your side of the argument is the more correct one, furthering understanding of issues and helping decision-makers make the best decisions. For him, its about the issue to be decided, not the process or game of debating.

Speed: I wouldn't go past 200 WPM, obviously if you openly spread and give him a speech doc, he won't read it and he'll just drop you. He's a smart guy but he's lay, and believes that you cannot persuade a judge who can’t understand what you are saying.

Decorum: He's one of those lawyer judges that LOVES professionalism in round. If you show any sign that you aren't taking things seriously or are not respecting the other side, he will HATE it. Wear professional, what old people would call "court room" clothes. He believes that being relaxed and humorous can be an effective form of persuasion, but be very tasteful and charismatic. Don't just go off.

Rudeness: VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION HERE, he loves "aggression and power" in speeches, NOT crossfires. If you're rude in cross he'll probably drop you, not even because he's offended by rudeness, he'll just assume you're losing and don’t have the better argument if you have to "resort" to being rude.

In the end, what my ranking will ultimately come down to is how high quality the arguments and refutations are presented in the round, and will have a higher priority over your speaking style.

Spreading will not be tolerated, and you will be ranked a lower score if I cannot understand your arguments. On the opposite hand, if you speak too slowly, you will also be ranked with a lower score. Please pace yourself appropriately during the round.

I enjoy light-heartedness in the round, jokes are always appreciated if used to support the points being made. Any offensive jokes will result in me dropping you from my ballot.

Theory debate is not my preferred method of debate. K's, Kritiks, and Err Affs/Negs hold no impact when I'm writing my ballot. I like when arguments can prove that there is an impact on the average person.

In terms of times of speeches, I'm indifferent if you go under the time limit. In fact, if you are able to convey your point while being under the limit, it shows to me as a judge that you value other people's time and the efficiency of the round. If you go over time, I will ignore the arguments made after the time has elapsed. However, I will not rank you lower if you go above the time.

Questions made during questioning periods should be related to the arguments made during the speech. Questions made just for the sake of questioning show to me, as the judge, that you are not prepared. Questions should also be short, specific, and concise.

There must be a clear link between the argument and the topic. Warrants themselves must also be linked to your argument, and also must be credible and unbiased. Intentional use of fake sources will result in you being dropped from the ballot. Citations are welcome but not mandatory. If a team doesn't provide citations, their ranked will not be affected. But if found to have used fake evidence, you will be dropped from the ballot.

Things I consider when choosing a winner for the debate:

1. The weight of the argument

2. The articulation of the speaker(s)

3. The impact of the arguments on the general population

Ranking PO's

To be able to manage time, decorum, and authority to the chamber makes a good PO. I will rank PO's higher if they demonstrate this behavior. If I see a PO being unfair in terms of wrongfully giving questions or speeches, they will be ranked very low on my ballot. If the PO can finish around the soft stop time, I will rank them higher. If they go past hard stop, it will be reflected on the PO's rankings.

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

Hey everyone! My name is Fidencio Jimenez, and I am currently the head congressional debate coach for Modernbrain Academy. I have competed in a variety of individual and debate events during my time as a competitor in the high school and collegiate circuits of competition. My general approach to judging follows as such:

Email for document sharing: fidencio.jimenez323@gmail.com

Congressional Debate

Make sure your claims are linked and warranted with evidence. If you don't make it clear how your sources and information connect, you just sound like you are listing sources without contextualizing them in the round. This usually results in speakers presenting impacts that were not explicated thoroughly. I do not flow arguments that fail this basic requirement.

Incorporate the legislation in your arguments. I read the topics before each round, make sure you do too. If your points do not connect with the actual plan (that being I don't buy that the topic viably solves the problems or creates claimed harms), I will not flow them.

Keep the debate topical. If the link between your claims and the bill is obvious there isn't much to worry about here. If you don't think the grounds for the link between your harm/benefit are clear, justify yourself by explaining what mechanisms in the legislation make it so that your claims come to fruition. This makes it so you avoid mistranslation and prevent judges (myself included, it can happen to anyone) from overlooking/misunderstanding something in the topic.

For presiding officers, I ask you to be firm, deliberate, and clear in your instructions. The more a PO demonstrates the ability to take control over the round to avoid complications, the more they will be rewarded.

EX: Round does not have anyone who wants to speak so you call for recess, call for splits, and urge people to swap sides or speak.

Policy/LD/PUFO/Parli

Spreading- I do not mind if you spread. However, if your speed makes it so you become audibly incomprehensible I will clear you. Spread at a pace you can actually handle and perform stably.

Counterplans (for where it is relevant)- I am not a fan, too many times it seems like the plans do not tackle the benefits provided by the proposition. If you can link a counter-plan that establishes a harm, run it, but if it doesn't tackle their actual case, you are better off avoiding it.

K's- Same thing as counter plans. There is a time and place but if the K is not extremely fleshed out or justified, I will not consider it. There has to be substantial real-world harm clearly established. Make sure to weigh why the educational value of the discussion is not worth the consequences it creates.

IE's

I evaluate based on performance and the educational value of a competitor. For instance, if someone has a cleaner performance, but does not have a topic that is educationally substantive or as critical as someone with a slightly less clean performance, the person with the more substantive topic will get a higher mark. This is why for interpretation events I ask your thesis is made clear within your introduction and for events like impromptu and platform speaking to avoid surface-level theses or topics.

I am a 5th-year coach and I have specifically coached an LD squad for 3 years. I have judged LD at many tournaments.

I am fine with moderate spreading, although I would appreciate the competitors sharing their cases with me if they plan to spread.

I don't like weak/hypothetical arguments and I find most extinction arguments to be particularly weak unless they are specifically applicable to the topic.

Tech cases are fine.

I appreciate a good case, but I feel like I'm deciding most rounds in rebuttals.

A competitor must have a framework and that framework really needs to make sense for their case.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging at a handful of tournaments each year for the past four years. I am a trial attorney by profession and have a great deal of experience with jury trials.

I value clear organization, "road mapping," and clear expression of arguments. I am ok with some "speed talking" but in moderation please, and I do not like "spreading." I closely track the arguments made by each side and take copious notes. I pay particular attention to whether each side is listening to and directly responding to specific arguments made by the other side. As a trial attorney, I also appreciate speakers who show skill during the cross-fire exchanges. For bonus points, I appreciate an advocate who can weave in other rhetorical skills, like drawing analogies, a good turn of phrase, and the occasional use of wit and humor.

Personal Judging Style:

Before the round:

Teams/speakers have to come to a consensus about whether they stand or sit. I expect you to keep your own time, and if your speech runs over time by over 30 seconds, I will step in and stop you verbally with "that's time." If you require an email for a the source email chain (teams must agree if doing this), I will provide my email for you.

Criteria:

I award the win to the team/speaker who is able to break down the topic and their argument in a way that is completely comprehensible, meaning that a beginner with absolutely no background in the topic should be able to follow everything said. Any technical terms used should be defined using a reputable source early in the debate. Debaters should be able to effectively poke holes in the other's argument, and provide credible evidence in a logical, quick, and professional way. Spreading is okay, however, if your words blend together and I cannot understand what you are saying, I dock points.

I dock points for any case of disrespect. If any team talks down or belittles their own partner, the judge, or anyone on the opponent's team, I will note this down in my ballot, and there are little to no instances for me where a disrespectful team wins. Disrespect and bringing prejudiced and judgemental attitudes into the debate is not what speech and debate should have.

At the end of the round, I will give my verbal Reason For Decision (RFD) briefly and will write more lengthy comments in my ballot. Please accept the decision I say with professionalism, and I will not take any questions nor will I be having an argument or discussion with you about what I said.

What I look for is the debater's composure, confidence, and if those things get better while speaking, and, if the competitor is able to get their point across in a clear and factual manner. Though I regard presentation highly, if what is being said has little to no structure or becomes difficult to follow or unclear, even if it is presented well, I will not give them the higher scores and points. I take notes during the entire debate, and if there are many places where I am unable to follow the organization of your argument, you will not win the round.

Background:

I was a competitor from 2010 - 2014 in Nova High School Speech and Debate in Original Oratory for all four years, and attended Florida Forensic Institute's summer camp for two summers. As a team member, I would help coach the underclassmen in their presentation and teach them how to edit their speeches. One tournament, Blue Key 2013, I coached a small amount of my team the night before we competed and every single person advanced out of prelims.

I started judging in 2021 and have continued until now. During this time, I mainly judged speech events, but have since judged debate for this academic year. My most recent tournament was Glenbrooks where I judged Varsity Public Forum for almost every preliminary round.

CONGRESS PARADIGM

I am a parent judge who has been judging congress at a local, state, and national level for over 5 years. I hope this paradigm tells you a bit more about what I'm looking for.

If you deliver a speech I already heard a different competitor give before, I will give you a lower rank. There is no good reason to copy your teammate's speeches, especially at prestigious bid tournaments. This goes for authorships/sponsorships, too.

PRESENTATION Congress is partially a speech event. Your presentation and delivery will factor into my judging. I love when people take more interesting, performative approaches that break up the monotony of a congress round. Please don't speak too quickly. I will hold it against you if you are reading too much from your pad and have poor eye contact. You should be familiar enough with the content of your speech to not be completely dependent on your pad. I have nothing against electronics. An iPad instead of a legal pad is perfectly fine as long as you don't let it hamper your performance.

CONTENT If you are making claims, make sure they are substantiated with evidence, especially if they are provocative or important new claims in the round. Round adaptation is extremely important. If you're just saying the same things as the previous five speakers before you, I have no reason to give you a good rank. Debaters have an obligation to engage with, build on, and refute what has been said by others in the round.

Always 1. link to the bill and 2. terminalize your impacts. Every speech needs to explain how passing this bill specifically causes a distinct harm or benefit. I don't have strict requirements for how you structure your speeches because I think that stifles innovation in this event, as long as it's a clear, understandable, effective speech.

RHETORIC I love an interesting rhetorical narrative. I think cookie cutter intros are boring. In the best case, each speech has an introduction relevant to the bill or even what has been previously said in the round. Rhetoric is not a substitute for substance. I've heard many brilliant rhetorical performances with very little content, and as much as I enjoy them, I can't rank them very high in the context of a congress round.

PRESIDING OFFICERS
I always rank competent POs well. A congress round can't run without a PO, and I will never punish someone who knows what they're doing for stepping up to perform this vital function. Please don't PO if you don't know what you're doing. Yes, everyone has to PO for the first time at some point, but you should still be coming prepared and as someone who is already familiar with how congress works. POing should not be a cop-out for being underprepared.

Some notes for novices/people who are new to congress:

• Memorize parts of your speech
• If you're speaking later in the round, don't just deliver the speech you came prepared with - adapt!
• Be prepared to switch sides on a one-sided bill: you're doing the chamber and your judges a favor
• Be courteous: don't use parliamentary procedure as a tool to exclude or disadvantage others
• Enjoy yourself! Winning 1st place doesn't mean much if you didn't have fun

Hello, I look for positive energy and good eye contact. I judge on preparedness and knowledge of the subject with references if needed. Thanks!!!

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year.  Here is my updated paradigm.  This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate.  This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate.  I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate.  You don't need to send me your case.  I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read.  So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

LD

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about.  I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it.  That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate.  Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!  

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges.  As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.  

Good luck!

I am a parent/lay judge.

Please speak SLOWLY, I will not understand quick speeds.

I will try to vote off of argumentation so please make the argument you are going for very clear by Final Focus.

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

Be kind, express your originality, and have fun!

I'm a parent judge new to PF please speak clearly so I understand your argument. I'm looking forward.

Hey! I was a policy debater for Cypress Bay HS for 4 years (with some LD mixed in) and then was the Director of Forensics of Lincoln High School in Tallahassee, FL. If I don’t mention it, that means I’m fine with it, and honestly, all of this is tentative, because if you can convince me to change something, I will. I’m not stuck in my (debate) ways.

POLICY

TOPICALITY: I'll vote on T but you better be willing to spend most (read: all) of the 2nr on it. It’s really simple, T is a priori. You drop T and you lose. You aren’t able to beat the neg’s T arguments and you lose. You win T and you’re not wasting our time with an untopical argument, I’m so proud (so no RVI’s y’all). On the note of losing to T, there are a select few T arguments that I feel are nonsensical, and I may very well disregard them (unless you sway me otherwise, or, of course, the Aff just drops it).

THEORY: I think theory has its place in debate, but it primarily should be used as a balancing mechanism for that particular round. Meaning that if you’re Neg you’re not going to win a round because you sufficiently proved that the Aff had much more time and ability to prep than you – that will happen every round. Run it when someone runs 7 conditional arguments, or something equally abusive.

KRITIKS: They’re fun. But you need to understand what you’re running, and realize that Kritiks are (for the most part) legitimate philosophies. So if you run a K, you need to (a) understand the Kritik completely, (b) be able to properly explain it (more on this later), and (c) don’t do anything contradictory in round that’s opposed to the fundamentals of what they read. Clearly explain the link and explain why it is specific to this round, and how this is not just your generic neg strat (even if it is, you better be running it in that round for a reason).

TRAD STUFF: Stock Issues are a thing, and I’ll weigh them appropriately in a trad debate. That being said, the Aff speaks first, they can set the tone for the round. So if they want to run a Kritikal case, fine, it’s no longer a trad oriented debate. But if the neg is able to convince me why Stock Issues are still important, then there ya go. No, I do not think that every case needs a set plan. But you need to be topical. Cross that bridge however you see fit. Make sure, like with K's, that your DA's have a solid link.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Again, I'm mainly a CXer, so I’m not that familiar with LD specific arguments, so make sure what you’re saying is clear. Also because of my CX background, I lean more toward the Policy realm of arguments regarding solvency, impacts, etc. So if you’re good with those/like them, run them. See above for my philosophy on Kritiks/Theory.

GENERIC STUFF FOR EVERYONE (for the most part)

Debate is about fundamental knowledge, and while cards are integral, you do not need evidence for every single thing. Use logic, and convince me why it’s logical. Analytics are not only welcome, they will boost your speaker points.

On the note of speaker points, please be polite and respectful. A bit of sass is always appreciated, this is debate after all, but overall be good competitors and good partners. Doing so will increase your speaker points. Not doing so will decrease them.

I’m completely fine with speed, but you should not be outright spreading if you’re not reading a card (meaning, the last 3 rebuttals can be fast, but don’t spread them). This also means you need to slow down on taglines and authors. If I don’t get that, I don’t flow it, and it makes it difficult for me to vote for you if I only flowed 60% of your cards. My hands can only move so fast to flow that.

On the note of cards, if you say “mark the card there” or some variant (I will deduct minimal speaker points if you say “clip”, clipping is when you don’t want people to know you’re not reading the full card, and y’all need to get out of the habit of saying clip instead of mark), you (or your partner) need to physically mark the card, and then immediately flash your opponents a copy of the marked cards. And competitors, it’s in your best interest to point out if they are marking cards before a warrant. I’m normally able to catch it, but point it out anyway.

I do not take prep time for flashing, but I only stop timing prep when you stop typing/writing. On the note of flashing, give them all the cards you’re going to read. This is a debate, if there’s a flaw there, let them find it, or don’t use flawed evidence. And don’t scroll beyond what they’re currently saying (i.e. if they’re currently reading from page two, you shouldn’t already be scanning page five). Also with prep, I'm fine with "flex prep" (asking questions during your prep time) as long as both teams are ok with it.

Cross-X stuff: Only questions. That’s the purpose. I’m totally fine (and even look forward to) the inevitable “Is that a question?” Please face me, not each other at all times while speaking, even during CX when you’re talking to each other. CX is a 3 way conversation between aff, neg, and (the silent, but ever attentful) judge. Don’t close me out. I’m fine with open (group/partner/whatever) cross-x in Policy, its TEAM debate, y’all should be able to work as a team even in CX. But if you’re talking over your partner and not letting them answer, that’ll hurt you, or if you’re just letting your partner answer all the questions, that’ll hurt you. I want to see each debater exhibit their talents.

You need to explain things clearly throughout the entire debate, especially the 2NR and 2AR. Explain exactly why you should win and why they should lose. Think of it as that “Previously On…” segment at the beginning of TV shows (which no one really needs since we all watch 5+ episodes in a row anyway). Wrap the round up, don’t just assume if you see a clear win (or loss, you didn’t lose till I’ve signed my ballot, remember) that I see one.

If you have any questions (or just want to talk about stuff, preferably something of the nerdy variety), ask me before the round, or when you see me around the tournament.

And you can always email me at jeremy.b.schleicher@gmail.com.

Ready, set, flow!

I am an experienced coach and judge. I have competed, coached and judged in all areas of speech & debate.

I am a 'tabula rasa' judge, which for me means that I will listen to any reasonable argument. I am always interested in hearing creative approaches to any resolution. However, I fully support the format, style and philosophy of each debate and speech event.

I am not adverse to rapid speaking, because debate time is limited. BUT I will not condone 'spreading' as a tactic. If you insist you win because the opponent did not address all of your issues, I may or may not accept your premise.

Evidence is primary to any good argument. You should be able to coherently present your evidence with citation in every instance. Referencing 'cards' in a case is ambiguous, since I will not have your case in front of me.

In all Cross Ex portions, LISTEN to your opponent. Address their concerns and their rationale for opposing you. Be civil and understand they have as much a right to be here as you do.

I will not make your case for you. I may be very familiar with the resolution, strategy and line of reasoning you are using, but I will not assume you even know what you are talking about. You have to know your case and be able to defend it.

In Congress, competitors must listen to the line of argument and offer unique and relevant arguments. Repeating points or delivering a prepared speech that does not advance the debate is poor practice and means you do not know the bill. Logic and analysis are fine, but a warrantless argument will not have a very big impact.

I do not rank POs particularly high. A competent PO will score near the middle of a typical Congress round.

In Extemp, I want to learn new things, hear unique ideas and understand my world better.

In LD, I am neither a traditionalist or progressive; I want to hear a values-based argument founded on a good philosophical framework. Values are precursors to behaviors, so there is no solving of problems or plans of action.

email: sshi.debate@gmail.com

Strath Haven '20 | Penn '24

experience: debated policy all of high school (haven't listened to spreading since though)

==================================================================

LD: Important things to note:

- i have little to no experience with ld, so things like reverse voter theory will need to be well explained and not rapid fire.

- It's been a bit since I've done anything with debate so I won't promise that I can flow spreading.

==================================================================

i've mostly run policy args during my time in debate, but i'll vote for anything if you tell me why i should.

specifics:

(I haven't thought about these in a couple years, oops)

disads - good, im very familiar with these.

counterplans - also good

impact turns - going for big turns are fun, and i will enjoy them lots if you take lots of time warranting out stuff and having a fun time with seeing what you can do with them

k's - i'm open to args with most exp with args like Cap, Security, Bio, etc... high theory args are confusing (and im pretty sure everybody will think so too) so make sure you explain those well. i think neg will need a specific and well developed link debate and i think neg should still engage lots with the aff, because its likely i will weigh the k and the aff unless proven otherwise. case turns against k's are good.

k affs - i'm also open to these, although to be fair most of my time with k affs is when i read T against them. i think neg should allocate a good amount of time on case because i dont think its done enough

t/fw - i like to think fairness is an important impact, but i think you can have really good debates about education. make sure abuse story is clear. I'm generally compelled by t args if the interp/counter interp debate is really clear. i generally am compelled to believe that the ballot is only win/loss, but a good story might change what i think about the ballot in a round. i like to be a policymaker unless told otherwise.

theory - substance is better, i have sort of high threshold for voting on theory args and esp rejecting teams if theory wasnt dropped or it isn't very clear about why i should reject the team

--- condo is chill

--- LD: i will give more weight to theory args if explained well to me because of how things go in LD

speaks - i think mostly common sense will help when approaching this

--- timing and such should be done by teams themselves

--- being overtly rude will dock pts

--- disclosing is good practice

--- efficiency and reducing downtime between speeches/prep is awesome

I am a parent judge with very little expierence. Please speak slowly and explain your arguments. I will vote for the side that is the most persuasive and best explains their arguments.

Background: 1 year High School Debate and Speech (Policy, Poetry Interp, Extempt). 1 year debate at Hawaii Pacific University (World Schools and British Parliament). 2 Years Debate at Middle Tennessee State University (IPDA/NPDA). 5 years teaching and developing high school and middle school curriculum for Metro Memphis Urban Debate League (Policy), 2 years as assistant debate coach at Wichita East High (Policy, LD, Speech), currently Head Debate Coach at Boston Latin School (Congress, LD, PF & Speech)

Go ahead and add me to the email chain: MEswauncy@gmail.com

Quick Prefs:

Phil/Trad - 1

K - 2 or 3

LARP/Theory- 4

Tricks - 5/Strike

Overall Philosophy: I do not believe "debate is a game". I believe in quality over quantity. Clear argumentation and analysis are key to winning the round. Narratives are important. I like hearing clear voters in rebuttals. While I don't mind a nice technical debate, I love common sense arguments more. This is DEBATE. It isn't "who can read evidence better". Why does your evidence matter? How does it link? How does it outweigh? These things matter in the round, regardless of the style of debate. Pay attention to your opponent's case. Recognize interactions between different arguments and flows and bring it up in CX and in speeches. Exploit contradictions and double-turns. Look for clear flaws, don't be afraid to use your opponent's evidence against them. Be smart. You need to weigh arguments.

I am typically a "truth over tech" judge. I think tech is important in debate and I pay attention to it but tech is simply not everything. Meaning unless the tech violation is AGGREGIOUS, you won't win obviously questionable or untrue arguments just because you out teched your opponent. Arguments need to make sense and be grounded in some sort of reality and logic.

I am one of those old school coaches/competitors that believes each debate event is fundamentally different for good reason. That means, I am not interested in seeing "I wish I was policy" in LD or PF. Policy is meant to advocate for/negate a policy within the resolution that changes something in the SQ; LD is meant to advocate for/negate the resolution based on the premise that doing so advances something we should/do value as a society; PF is meant to effectively communicate the impacts of whatever the resolution proposes. This is not in flux. I do not change my stance on this. You will not convince me that I should. If you choose to turn an LD or PF round into a policy round, it will a) reflect in your speaks b) probably harm your chances of winning because the likelihood that you can cram what policy does in 1.5 hours of spreading into 1 hour of LD/PF while ALSO doing a good job doing what LD/PF is SUPPOSED TO DO (even if you spread) is very low.

Theory I will not vote on:
Disclosure theory, Paraphrasing Theory, Formal Clothes Theory, Dates Theory. All of these are whack and bad for debate. If your opponent runs any of the above: you can literally ignore it. Do not waste valuable time on the flow. I will not vote on it.

Spreading theory: Feel free to run it in LD or PF. It is the only theory I really consider. Do not run it if you are spreading yourself, that is contradictory.

I "may" evaluate a trigger warning theory IF your opponents' argument actually has some triggering components. Tread VERY carefully with this and only use it if there is legitimate cause.

Kritieks:
I am not amused by attempts to push a judge to vote for you on the vague notion that doing so will stop anti-blackness, settler colonialism, etc etc. As a black woman in the speech and debate space, IMO, this approach minimizes real world issues for cheap Ws in debate which I find to be performative at best and exploitative at worst. That being said, I am not Anti-K. A K that clearly links and has a strong (and feasible) alt is welcome and appreciated. I LOVE GOOD, WELL DEVELOPED Ks. I am more likely to harshly judge a bad K in LD as LD is supposed to be about values and cheapening oppression and exploiting marginalized people for debate wins is probably the worst thing for society.

Tricks: No.

Conditionality: I believe "Condo Bad" 89% of the time. Do not tell me "Capitalism Bad" in K and then give me a Capitalism centered CP. Pick one.

Decorum: Be respectful, stay away from personal attacks. Rudeness to your opponent will guarantee you lowest speaks out of all speakers in the round, personal attacks will net you the lowest speak I can give you. I recognize that being snarky and speaking over your opponent and cutting them off in CX is the "cool" thing to do, particularly in PF. It is not cool with me. It will reflect incredibly poorly on your speaker points. Do not constantly cut your opponent off in CX. It's rude and unprofessional. WORDS MATTER, using racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic or any other type of biased phrases unintentionally will reflect on your speaks. We need to learn to communicate and part of learning is learning what is offensive. Using it intentionally will have me in front of tab explaining why you got a 0.

Lastly, there is no reason to yell during the round, regardless of the format. I love passion, but do not love being yelled at.

Public Forum Debate

Speed/Spreading: While I accept spreading in Policy rounds; I DO NOT ENTERTAIN SPREADING IN PF. I will absolutely wreck you in speaks for trying to spread in PF, and I will stop flowing you if it is excessive and you don't bother to share the case. That is not the purpose of this format.

Weighing: You must weigh. I need to know why I should care about your argument and why it matters. If you do not do this, you might lose no matter how great the evidence.

Impacts: If your argument has no impact it is irrelevant. Make sure your impact makes logistical sense.

I will ignore any new arguments presented in second summary (unless it is to answer a new argument made in first summary), first final focus or second final focus.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I am somewhat annoyed by the trend in LD to become "We want to be policy". LD cannot do policy well due to time constraints and things LD is actually supposed to do. That being said if you choose to present a plan: I will judge that plan as I would judge a policy debate plan. You must have inherency, you must have solvency for your harms, etc etc. If your opponent shows me you have no inherency or solvency and you can't really counter within your four minute rebuttal, you lose by default. If you choose to run a K: I will judge you like I would judge a K in a policy debate. Your link must be clear, your alt must be well developed and concise. If your opponent obliterates your alt or links and you cannot defend them well and did not have time to get to strong A2s to their case, you most likely will lose. I am well aware that you probably do not have "time" to do any of this well within LD speech constraints. But so are you before you make the decision to attempt to do so anyway. So, if you opt to be a policy debater in an LD round; do know that you will be judged accordingly. :)

LD is meant to be about values, failure to pull through your value, link to your value, etc will likely cost you the round

Speed/Spreading: Spreading in LD will reflect in your speaker points but I can flow it and won't drop you over it.

Value/Criterion: Even if I do not buy a particular side's value/criterion, their opponent MUST point out what is wrong with it. I do not interventionist judge. I base my decision on the value and/criterion presented; make sure you connect your arguments back to your criterion.

Framework: UNDERSTAND YOUR FRAMEWORK. I cannot stress this enough. If your framework is absolutely terribly put together, you will lose. If you blatantly misrepresent or misunderstand your framework, you will lose.

I will ignore all new arguments after the first AR.

Policy Debate

Solvency: THE AFF PLAN MUST SOLVE

Topicality: I am VERY broad in my interpretation of topicality. Thus, only use Topicality if you truly have a truly legitimate cause to do so. I am not a fan of hearing T just to take up time or for the sake of throwing it on the flow. I will only vote for T if is truly blatant or if the aff does not defend.

Ks: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it. I expect solid links to case, and a strong alternative. "Reject Aff" is not a strong alternative. Again, use if you have legitimate cause, not just to take up time or to have something extra on the flow.

Critical Affs: If you are unsure how to run a K, then don't do it.

DAs: Make sure you link and make your impact clear.

CPs: Your CP MUST be clearly mutually exclusive and can NOT just piggy back off of your opponent's plan. Generic CPs rarely win with me. (Basically, "We should have all 50 states do my opponent's exact plan instead of the Federal Government doing it" is just a silly argument to me)

Speed/Spreading: I don't mind speed as long as you're speaking clearly.

Fiat: I don't mind fiats AS LONG AS THEY MAKE SENSE. Please don't fiat something that is highly improbable (IE: All 50 states doing a 50 state counterplan on a issue several states disagree with). "Cost" is almost always fiated for me. Everything costs money and we won't figure out where to come up with that money in an hour and a half debate round.

Tag Team Debate/ Open CX: For me personally, both partners may answer but only one may ask. UNLESS tournament rules state something different. Then we will abide by tournament rules.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

I am a parent judge and Sunvite 2020 is my first-time judging LD. I am interested in politics, philosophy, and economics, and as such I appreciate substantive debate about the topic. Please debate at a reasonable speed. I will do my best to flow, but if you spread, I cannot guarantee I will get all your arguments down. Please avoid Ks, Theory Shells, CPs, and confusing NCs & Tricks.

I am a parent judge and this is my third year judging. Please write your title in the chat as it will make it easier for me.

For extemp, I am looking for someone who has a clear understanding of the question. Please state your opinion and have the facts and mainstream media sources to back it up. Incorrect facts will be affect your ranking. Please use your time wisely, pace yourself and don't finish 3 minutes early.

For HI, OO, PO, PR, DI - I will rank based on speaking ability, content, confidence and interest. I have been very entertained by the high level of talent in these tournaments.

For virtual setup - please verify your setup to make sure the judge can see you. I can't see if you if you shine a light in my face.

Congress

My judging philosophy is fairly simple to follow.

I'm most partial to arguments that are comprehensible, yet also the most compelling with how you extend them into various impacts and use them to interact with others in the round. A good and powerful command of diction is always well appreciated.

Additionally, effortlessness and some casualness, not to the point that it undermines your professionalism, in speaking will always make a speech come off better to me. In relation to data, I enjoy hard numbers, with quantifications and substantiations being ideal. I don't want to see biased opinions from sources just being relayed in speeches, as it removes all of the critical thinking that debate should be endemic of. While exploitative rhetoric is never the best path, I have a higher tolerance for it than others. That being said, I much rather see wit and logic in how speakers convey themselves instead of effectively forcing me to appeal to some group I may be apathetic to.

At the end of the day, I need to understand your arguments. You can make them as complex as you want as long as I who is a parent judge can understand them.