Hello debaters! I am a parent volunteer judge and I’m very excited to be here with you all. I have been trained on judging this specific style and have judged multiple debate styles & speech events. My son is a 3rd year debater. I’m eager to learn from you all and give you feedback from my perspective!

If you plan on spreading and/or are running a progressive case, please share your case with me to this email address: aihongwen@hotmail.com

True spreading will be difficult and very new for me. When possible, please slow down slightly so that I can take thorough notes and give you the best feedback & results.

general:

I dont flow or count cross X thats for yall not me

if a question goes over time i will allow a quick and concise response

and as a heads up im a bit hard of hearing so if im looking away im pointing my ear to hear better im not ignoring you i promise

LD:

value: the upholding of your value over your appoint

Value criteria: a connecting theme between your point value and value criteria

as LD debater who wants to see the style grow if I see any unsportsmanly conduct I will stop flow and adjudicate the round the same moment excessive speed and use of "info bombing" ect. are considered as unsportsmanly conduct

Congress:

Congress is just as much about your research as your presentation ham it up be confident you are taking the role of a Congressmen embrace that energy also call out someone who if they said something that’s just especially if you can explain how wrong they were also if you have already heard your points said don’t just restate them expand on them

PF: tbd

BQ: tbd

Hello! My name is Audrey Behar, I'm a Har-Ber High School student in the class of 2021. I'm the vice-captain of the Har-Ber Debate Team.

Judging Paradigms

- No spreading. I'm pretty good at keeping up but if you talk faster than Eminem then I'm disregarding it. Please speak clear because you can earn a lot of points from me for being a good speaker.

- Make sure your points are clear, it's hard to judge a round if I have no idea what your points are.

- Be organized with your flow and make sure to have good structure.

- Don't be rude to your opponent. This includes rolling your eyes, laughing while your opponent is talking, or yelling at your opponent during cross. It's annoying when people catch an attitude during a round. If you have to, pretend to be polite.

- If there is clash, then it's your job to convince me with evidence and logic.

- Have fun with it! If I can see that you're having fun and enjoying it, then it'll make it easier to judge for me haha

Honestly, I'm a pretty laid back judge. If you want critiques or advice after the round, I'll gladly give them. Speech and debate should be enjoyable and I want everyone to have a good time during rounds. Good luck! :)

Relatively straightforward:

Keep the debate interesting with new evidence and argumentation

Speak clearly

Be polite! Of course keep a bite but never step into the realm of rude.

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

put me on the email chain please: angela.cheng345@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her

1. I'm fine with whatever you run as long as you are being kind and respectful!

Thank you so much for this opportunity to see you in this arena.

I am a parent volunteer, but I bring a background of performing arts, writing and literature, marketing, and education as a foundation for my judging. I am incredibly passionate about helping young people improve their thinking and communication skills and would love to discuss anything with you after I've submitted scores for your competition.

DEBATE

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback on those. But for now, my perspective will be based on the following:

✅Strength of argument- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅General presentation- TARGET: clear and interesting vocalization, professional and confident body language, professional and clean dress, etc.

✅Rebuttal/Cross- TARGET: paying attention during opponent's speech, asking clear and specific questions that undermine their argument, answering questions asked

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

FORENSICS

As I become more familiar with structures of the various styles, I will provide more specific feedback. But for now, my notes will be based on the following:

✅Elements of performance- TARGET: Volume and enunciation vary as appropriate for the piece and allow audience to hear clearly; careful considerations for tone, inflection, characterization, etc.; using space to enhance the performance

✅Strength of rhetoric- TARGET: standard structure that flows from point to point, audience consideration, strategic word choice and phrasing, variety of methods of argument (ethos, logo, pathos), tone is respectful (see below)

✅Consideration of the audience- TARGET: Piece is selected with judges and peers in mind; performance engages audience through eye contact, vocal interest, etc.

✅Intention- TARGET: Performance steps outside the safe zone to make an impact and further reinforce the intention of the performance. It's a risk, but so is playing it safe.

✅Strength of argument (where applicable)- TARGET: argument is clear and structured in Claim-Evidence-Reasoning format, sources are reliable and relevant, fallacies are avoided

✅General civility to opponents and other viewpoints (specifically to those events that are argument/information based)- TARGET: Verbiage remains respectful and collaborative. Any language or attitude/tones that marginalize others, belittles others' viewpoints, etc. will result in lower ranking/score. Examples include:

❌using religious perspectives in the argument where not specifically warranted

❌using phrases like "pipedream," "ridiculous," and other phrases that are more subjective and belittle others rather than creating a relevant argument

❌microaggressions, ableist language, etc.

These are tactics used by many news outlets and their followers, so it may be that your influences imply these are ethical ways for argument, but they are not. In fact, they weaken your own argument when in the presence of logical debate.

Please send any requested information to my email at taracloudclark@hotmail.com

Hi everyone! My name's Andrea Dorantes, and I'm an alumnus of Bentonville High School in Bentonville, Arkansas. Currently, I am a senior at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. Before college, I competed in both Speech and Debate for 5 years. I am the 2017 State Champion in USX, a National Qualifier in Informative Speaking, and a Semi-Finalist in Informative Speaking at the National Tournament of Champions. I have also competed in Congressional Debate at a high level. Although most of my performance experience lies in the public speaking realm, I am confident in my ability to assess other performances with skill and consistency. Thank you for your patience and perseverance in this unconventional time, and I am glad your skills and hard work will be able to be showcased.

I'm really looking forward to watching your performances :)

General:

I am a varsity debater and do not judge often, so please be patient with me.

Voters: I value logic and argumentation. I will weigh evidence on relevance and quality, not on quantity. I value both scientific and philosophical evidence, however, if you link out your case with more probable or evident examples, this will give you an advantage. I expect well thought out argumentation and refutation. Please spell it out for me, make your links and argumentation clear and easy to understand. If your opponent's argumentation has holes, point them out to me or I may not take that into account when making a decision. Setting burdens will be helpful to you.

Speaks: I will almost never award points under 25 unless you are demonstrating blatant prejudice, disrespect, or discrimination against the opponent, judge, or any group of individuals (any exhibition of racism, sexism, ect., will cost you the round.) Please do not spread. How well you speak will be weighed in my decision, however, it is not the most important factor. If you speak well but your argument is weak, you are not likely to win.

LD:

I do not enjoy counter plans and will not weigh the round on solvency. Lincoln Douglass is a values debate, therefore it is not weighed on how to solve a problem, rather what we as people should value and why. Impacts are helpful to your case. If you do present a counter plan, please include a value. I understand that you cannot just change your case 10 minutes before round, therefore I will do my best to set aside bias against progressive LD. That being said, you still must fulfill either a value of your own or fulfill your opponents value. Again, I will judge the round on argumentation and refutation.

Decorum:

Above all else, be respectful. Aggression is not intelligence. I do not enjoy rounds in which competitors belittle or disrespect each other, or try to insinuate that the other is of lesser character. Make it a good round and have fun!

Hi!  I am pleased to judge at this tournament.  You will influence me most with solid logic accompanied by supporting facts and evidence.  I will flow your debate on paper to keep track of the various arguments and rebuttals.  You are welcome to talk fast in an effort to overwhelm your opponent with arguments and facts and I will respect that, but that alone may not win the round with me.  Take care that the speed at which you argue does not hinder clear communication of your reasoning.

General info:

Feel free to put me in the email chain but know that I will only flow what I hear you say in the round. I will give you a 10 second grace period at the end of each of your speeches. If you go over that I will drop you a speaker point. I won't flow cross-ex so if something important is said in cross, make sure to use it in one of your speeches.

Burdens are one of the biggest voters I use to adjudicate the round. As debaters, you should know that the Aff has the burden of proof and the Neg has the burden of clash and should be able to uphold these. The Aff will use on case arguments to prove their side and the Neg will use their on and off case arguments to clash with the Affirmative case. At the end of the round, I will decide who has achieved their burden best.

Framework is another important factor whether it be Value and Value Criterion(LD), Framework(PF/Policy), or a Weighing Mechanism(IPDA/BQ). I won't "flow" framework to one side or the other, I will flow the framework as either "upheld" or "fallen". At the end of the round, I will apply only the upheld framework(s) to both sides and decide who achieves it better.

Case Argumentation is an essential voter to emphasize on in the round. The Affirmative needs to present, uphold, and rebuild upon their on case argumentation in order to win the burden, the framework, and ultimately the round. The Negative should provide on case arguments that help them clash with the ideas and arguments that the Aff is presenting. The Aff can use off case arguments to rebuild and extend their points and the Neg can use them to clash with the Aff. Ideally, the strongest arguments have a claim, warrant, evidence, analysis, and impact. I will only flow an argument as dropped if someone points it out. If you are rebuilding, extending, or pointing out dropped arguments don't do the bare minimum, after you're done doing this take some time to explain why your arguments matter.

Miscellaneous: The Neg can use straight refusal but in order for this to work they must go line by line completely clashing with the Aff case. The Aff doesn't have any obligation to clash with the Negative case outside of the framework, they need only clash with the arguments they feel are important to the round. In your cross-ex, you have the control, if your opponent is eating up your time feel free to interrupt them so that you can move on to another question. If it is your opponent's cross-ex be respectful of them and their time, wasting your opponent's time in cross is just a good strategy but if they try to cut you off don't continue speaking or try to talk over them.

Lincoln Douglas: I am a traditional LD judge. I will not flow your Kritiks, Adds or Dis-Adds, or Theory Shells. If you want to use a Plan or Counterplan go ahead, but do not expect or imply that your opponent needs one to win the round. If your arguments are untopical I will not use them to weigh the round. Neither debater has an obligation to provide a Plan/Counterplan. Solvency is not an important factor in the round, so don't waste your time with it.

Pet Peeves: I am ok with speed but if you spread I will give you 20 speaker points. Do not try to put me or your opponent in a double bind that implies that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. If you lost, it was because either you failed to do your job as a debater or your opponent did a better job. With that being said, I will automatically vote you down if you are being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. I am a firm believer that debate is supposed to be fun and educational, we all get competitive but you are never justified in being rude to your opponent.

I am a new judge. I probably lean toward appearance judging and focus on logic, clear presentation of points, and well cited evidence. Spreading is not preferred.

I was a policy debater in West Texas in the late 90's. Competing and doing well in both UIL and TFA. Afterwards, I spent four years competing in two forms of limited prep debate at the collegiate level (IPDA and Parliamentary)

TWO DIAMOND COACH:

In 17 years of coaching, we have competed and won in Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, World Schools and Big Question. We are the only small-school ,from Arkansas, that has been consistent at qualifying for Nationals.

In the past 17 years, we have attended TOC 4 times and NSDA Nats 8 times. We have made it to nationals in everything from Oratory, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions and World Schools debate.

I have judged; 2020 NSDA PF FINALS, 2023 NSDA WSD FINALS, NSDA finals rounds of Individual events, NSDA Nats World Schools Debate, Big Questions Nationals Semi-Finals Round, Lincoln-Douglas.

TOC PF and everything that you can think of on our local circuit.

This activity and its associated community give me life. It has led me from a life of poverty into a prosperous one that allows for a completely different world than I was raised in. I am honored to be judging debaters of your caliber and degree.

My View on debate:

It is my hope that my view on debate is nuanced and takes into account as many viewpoints as possible. Debate is a 'game'. However, this game has the ability to examine and change the status quo. The words we say, the thoughts we use, and the policy that we propose is not only a reflection of real life but often has real-world implications outside of the round. My responsibility as an adjudicator extends past the time we share together. My ballot will carry the ramification of perpetuating or helping to stop the things that are espoused in that round.

I ,therefore, take my job extremely seriously when it comes to the type of argumentation , words used and attitude presented in the rounds that I will sit in front of. It is also a game in the sense that the competitors are present in order to compete. The fact that we are engaged in an intellectual battle doesn't change the fact that every person in the round is trying to win. I have never seen a debater forfeit a round in order to further their own social or political commentary.

If the topics calls for an in-depth discussion of any type of argument that might be considered a "K" that is entirely fine. I caution that these types of arguments should be realistic and genuine. It is a travesty and a mockery of the platform to shoehorn serious social commentary with the sole intent of winning a game.

In terms of the words you choose and the arguments that you make. Please follow this advice that I found on another judge's Paradigm "A non-threatening atmosphere of mutual respect for all participants is a prerequisite to any debating."

Debate should be a free marketplace of ideas but it should also be a marketplace that is open to all humans on this earth. That can't happen with aggressive language that dehumanizes others. Make your point without tearing people down. Getting a W isn't worth losing your moral compass.

This activity is a game of persuasion that is rooted in evidenced based argumentation. I prefer a well warranted argument instead of a squabble over dates/qualification of evidence. [this is not to say qualification don't matter. But you have to prove that the evidence is biased] Don't waste your time arguing specifics when it doesn't matter.

Paradigms:

• Speed is fine. "Spreading" is not. Your breathing shouldn't become markedly different and noticeable because of your rate increase. The pitch of your voice shouldn't also change dramatically because of your delivery. If you are clean, clear and articulate then you are free to go as fast as you wish.
• Don't just extend cards with Author name. "Extend Samson '09". You need to explain why that argument is a good answer to whatever you are extending. For me, debate is more than just lines on a page. Your words matter. Your arguments matter.
• I feel that the first two speeches are solely for setting up the case in favor or opposition to the resolution. If an answer happens to cross-apply as a good answer to their case that is fine. But, I don't expect PF teams to divide their time in the first speeches to offer counter-arguments.
• No new in the 2. Core arguments should be flowing out of the first two constructive speeches. If it isn't covered by your partner in the second constructive or by you in the summary speech then it is dropped. Too little, too late. This isn't football and a Hail Mary will not occur.
• While I view debate as a game....it is more like Quidditch and less like muggle games. (*just because you win the most points doesn't make you the winner. If you catch that golden snitch....you can pull out the win! Don't be afraid to argue impacts as opposed to number of points)
• The affirmative has the burden of proof. It is their job to prove the resolution true. If the debate is a wash this means the default win will go to the negative. (low speak wins included)
• Framework: I will assume CBA unless otherwise stated. You can win framework and then lose the debate under that framework. That should be obvious. Make sure that you explain how and why you win under the framework of the debate.
• PF Plans/ CPs: Simply put. These are against the rule. You are allowed to give a general recommendation but this often delves right into plan territory.
• ATTITUDE: Humor is welcome. Sarcasm and rudeness are not.
• Evidence: Don't miscut evidence. I will call for evidence if (A) a team tells me to do so or (B) I suspect it is miscut.
• Round Evaluation: I am a flow judge. I will judge based on what happens in-round. It is your job to impact out your arguments. Don't just say 'this leads to racism'...TELL ME WHY RACISM IS BAD and what the actual impact is. Don't make me do the work for you. Make sure to weigh the arguments out under the frameworks.
• Shoo fly, you bug me:
• Don't tell me that something is dropped when it isn't. If they simply repeat their assertion in response, that is a different story. But if they have a clear answer and you tell me that they dropped that isn't going to end well for you. Don't extend through ink.
• Rudeness: This isn't a street fight. This is an intellectual exchange and thus should not be a showcase of rude behavior such as: Ad Hominem attacks on your competition, derision of your opponents argument or strategy, Domination of Cross by shouting/ cutting off / talking over your opponents.
• Arguing with me after disclosure. It wont change the ballot.
• Packing your things while I am giving you a critique.

Overall, do your best and have a fantastic time. That is why we are all here. If you have any questions about a ballot feel free to e-mail me at mrgambledhs@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Alex Gardner and I graduated from Bentonville High School. At BHS I was a Public Forum Debater for 3 years. I was a state semi finalist as well as a multiple speaker award winner (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) yes I'm flexing that I was a good speaker. What about it.

Now lets get into the fun debate stuff that you all have been waiting for!!!

My Paradigms!!

I have no issue with what type of speed you use. When I debated I spoke pretty fast. But please remember that this is not policy so if you choose to speak fast I still should be able to understand what you are trying to tell me

I want clash and good argumentation. Please no framework or impact debate, that makes for a boring back and fourth round. Tell me how and why you won based on your contentions and arguments. (That is also how you are going to get good speaker points)

I promise I wont deduct speaker points if you stutter or use filler words. I get that debating can be nerve-wracking. But the more confident you sound and the more prepared you are will definitely help in the long run.

Cross-ex. Everyone's favorite time in the round. or least favorite for some. Please be kind and courteous during the cross-ex period. Remember this is high school debate and not the first presidential debate. Maintain decorum.

Extra stuff. Please do not debate definitions. That is boring and I will stop flowing. Also lets be as respectful as possible, that being said its okay to have some spicy clash and get a little heated. I understand and won't dock you points or vote you down on it. I've been there, it also can make the round for interesting. Just know the line.

I think I have pretty much covered all of my main paradigms but if you have any questions or want further explanation on anything please feel free to contact me at thereal.alexgardner@gmail.com. I cant wait to see what you guys bring and judge your rounds!!

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Decorum is of utmost importance - both verbal and nonverbal.

This should be a civil discourse between competitors.

Do NOT attack your opponent personally - attack the resolution and the claims.

Debate is a speaking activity, so, no, I do not want you to share/email/drop, etc. your case to me. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speaking style is also critical. Do not spread or even talk fast - if I can't understand or if I struggle to keep up with what you're saying two things happen: (1) I will miss key information and (2) I will get frustrated and not be able to judge you. If I miss an argument because you are speaking too fast and are not clear, then you didn't make it.

Do not be monotone in your delivery and look up during speeches. KNOW YOUR CASE!!!

You should not have so much information that it requires you to speak faster than normal conversation pace/speed. Be efficient with your words.

I want to know how to judge the round, so supply and use your MW or V/VC or Framework!

I want to see clear links between your claims and your WM, V/VC, Framework.

I want clear CWI's.

You need to clearly and effectively refute all of your opponent's claims. Debate requires CLASH - if there is no clash, then you have not debated. It is the responsibility of each debater to add to and create clash throughout the round.

I flow the round, so I am well aware of what has/has not been dropped or deconstructed - don't claim your opponent has dropped points when they haven't!!! This can cost you the ballot!

Debate the resolution you have been given and nothing else!

Do not have a side debate about who has the best evidence - present the evidence and I'll decide as the judge, I don't need you to try and persuade me - or any other issues not related to the given resolution.

I don't need a road map - you should be clear enough in your round that I can clearly follow you.

Have fun!!! The world will not come to an end if you do not win this round! Always be looking for what you can learn from each round you debate.

Win. Lose. Learn!

On a lighter note, my favorite K-pop bands are The Rose, EXO, BTS, Seventeen, NCT 127 & NCT Dream -- if you work K-pop lyrics into your case/refutation, you won't receive any extra points, but it'll make me smile ????!

First time judging. I am in Sales. I like good selling stories. I like deliveries to be crisp and clear. 

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

Leslie Harden Greer Judging Disclosure:

I take the responsibility of judging seriously and believe in rendering fair decisions based on a neutral perspective. I share this commitment with most experienced judges. I approach each round with an open mind, eliminating bias and holding no preconceived ideas about the outcome. I can lean affirmative or negative with equal propensity, and teams should strive to persuade me with their arguments.

I bring 23 years of experience as an English, drama, debate, and communication teacher, and have also coached speech and forensics, directed theatre, and coached mock trial and student congress. My approach to judging is influenced by these years of involvement in the education and forensics community.

Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

1. Communication is Key: I prioritize clear communication over rapid delivery. (It’s as if I can hear the quiet sobbing of the policy debaters reading this.) Effective communication is vital for conveying arguments successfully. I prefer a clear and eloquent presentation of issues in the round. Effective communication is crucial in persuading me of the merits of your arguments.

2. Play Professional: I place a high value on sportsmanship and decorum in debate. Respectful conduct is essential for a productive debate.

3. Affirmative Burden: The affirmative plan should fulfill all of their burdens. If the negative demonstrates that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.

4. Quality Evidence: I appreciate well-articulated arguments supported by high-quality evidence. Well-researched and substantiated arguments are more persuasive in my evaluation.

5. Focus on Disadvantages and Counter-Plans: I often give weight to disadvantages and counter-plans. While I may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments, I assess the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.

6. Respect for Judges: I expect debaters to recognize that judges are reasonably intelligent, well-informed members of society. Debaters should present their case comprehensively and avoid assuming that judges lack the ability to evaluate evidence and arguments.

In summary, my judging philosophy centers on fairness, clear communication, and rigorous argument evaluation. I encourage debaters to present their cases effectively and persuasively, regardless of their positions, and I assess each round impartially. Good luck, and I look forward to a productive and engaging debate.

School Nurse for Bentonville Public Schools. 5th time judging on a tournament. Please speak loud, slow and clear. Introduced yourself and what the topic is about.

Be respectful of each other, do not question the judge, learn from mistakes and enjoy the ride!

I did three years of high school debate last century; CX, which is now called Policy?  Or maybe it always was, but my mind is just gone.  Anyway, I know enough to make me dangerous, but if you start getting too technical, I may get a glazed look in my eyes, which means I went to my happy place.  Emphasize logic and reasoning as to why your argument is superior.  Evidence is good, but I don’t want to listen to article after article of fake news. (Just kidding.  Don’t go running off to your coach and tell on me.  I am not getting paid for this, so getting fired wouldn’t really hurt.  I would probably still have access to the judges lounge and all the free snacks.  Security is pretty lax.)

As you can tell, I have a sense of humor, and a pretty good one at that.  All my kids laugh at my jokes.  Then they ask me for money.  I will not give you money.  You will not give me money; unless it is off school property and I have my cardboard sign with me.  It’s okay to joke around, but it won’t help you win the debate.  It will help make life easier though.  After all, if we can’t laugh at others, who can we laugh at?

Okay, seriously, Confucius say good arguments are better than many arguments. (Don’t look that up, pretty sure he didn’t say that.)  I will flow to the best of my ability, but make sure to pull arguments even if they aren’t addressed.  If you fail to emphasize a winning argument in your closing, that means you probably didn’t identify it as important, which is a failure on your part.

I would prefer you speak clearly over quickly, but if you can do both, do it.  It’s probably a super power or some mutated DNA.  Just don’t crush my head with your mutant mind powers when you realize you are about to lose.

Have we reached the end of this already?  As a legal disclaimer, all the above is satire.  You can’t sue me because of it. It does have some pearls of wisdom, but it is up to you to dig them out and clean off the slimy, goopy stuff.  I don’t mind if you ask questions before the round, but no compliments, unless you really like the haircut.  Covid was hard on me.

I have my worldview, but it will only affect my judging in that I will honestly choose the team who I believe won the argument, even if I know that they are wrong.  In closing, as Patrick Swayze emphasized in Road House, “Be nice.”

I have not judged Debate before, but will say what I appreciate when watching a Debate....respectful tone of voice, slower cadence of speech, clear delivery of ideas. Have fun!

Refutation, commentary, logic and argument extension are my primary voters. I am a tabula rasa judge for most forms of debate.

LD - I enjoy having a traditional framework set up in LD but if you can link your debate theory and turn a case that is acceptable. I know there is a fight in Arkansas of “Prog v. Trad” and I honestly don't mind either way. I think if the arguments are accessible and we understand the ground of the debate and can create clash then there is no issue.

PF - This form of debate should be accessible to the average citizen. Speed should be moderate at most and there should not be an expectation for a plan/policy or alternate. I weigh more heavily on impacts than framework but having a weaved in framework throughout the case is a huge plus. I flow and weigh cross.

Biggest pet peeve:

{First speaker starts} Reads a questionable card in 1AC

{Neg during cross} can you summarize the card...?

{First speaker} I can't summarize it but I can read the card again.

Congress: I am relatively new to judging congress but have a decent grasp of Robert's rules. I enjoy it immensely and prefer to judge/weigh based on the NSDA Debate Guide. For example, the book lists that representatives should not infringe on the chamber's time - stop before the grace period. I weigh questions in your overall score ESPECIALLY if you are tied for speech scores. By the fourth/fifth speech on a bill there should be active clash in your speech and you should not just be rehashing old points or reading a canned speech. I love a good clarity/summary speech. If you are double entered and leave the chamber I do not let that affect your score for questioning BUT your goal is to be present and move the chamber you can't do that if you are not in attendance.

WSD

I am looking for presentation/style, organization, and of course well explained content. Please make sure to respectfully wave questions - I prefer civility and clarity. In terms of evidence, ensure that you focus on how the evidence fits in your argument / substantive and whether or not it is relevant or credible for the side.

BQ

Framework and definitions are pivotal. I know it is the same case all year but I do my best to evaluate the round as if I have not heard the topic before. Unless you agree to FW or Definitions then there should be time set aside in each speech to remind me why yours is preferred or superior and how it helps your observations and contentions. Don't spread - be civil - be organized.

I have not judged enough to have developed a philosophical approach but here are some key pieces of information:

1. I have not participated in a competitive debate.
2. I have only judged Public Forum.  I enjoy the approachable format and embrace the role of a citizen judge.  
3. I value logic, strong evidence/data, and clarity of expression - - please do not speak so fast that I cannot understand or follow your argument.   
4. While this is a competition, please be professional and courteous.  

Me: 

1st-Year Debate Coach

14-Year High School English Teacher (English 10 and Honors English 10)

Judging for Debate: 

Congress is what I have the most experience with outside of my English classroom. I like arguments that cite sources; some first-hand accounts are fine in supporting your case, but you need to have secondary sources that are timely and relevant. 

Speed of speaking - please keep it reasonable; fast is okay, but not to the point that it becomes difficult to understand the words you're saying. 

Clash and questioning - I love it when debaters show they are listening to what their opponent is saying by citing part of their opponent's speech in their questioning. Solid questioning that is open-ended and goes beyond a "yes" or a "no" answer helps to keep the debate flowing. 

Organization of speeches - Keeping the points clear and in the same order as listed in your claim. Just having a well-organized speech that doesn't veer off on tangents or unrelated concepts is always a plus. 

In general, showing respect to your opponent and using the experience to learn and grow as a debater. 

LR Central '22 | Mizzou '26

Kasten10203@gmail.com

I did Congress in high school. I do IPDA in college.

Debate is a game about persuasion. You still need to convince me. The goal of my paradigm is to give you the necessary information to effectively do so.

For PF:

I'm technically tech>truth if it comes down to it, but I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful.

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round.

Extensions are VERY VERY important. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offenses you are going for (turns included).

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) call them out on it and I will not vote on the argument

I'm fine with spreading. Just make sure you spend a speech doc and are speaking clearly. I'm fine with theory & Ks. I do have a congress background though, so if you use a lot of jargon quickly, make sure you explain.

For congress:

I always love constitutional arguments and will highly value them in a round.

I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship, so don't be afraid to give the first speech!

Make sure that questioning is on the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, you have to do cleanup. I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. There are exceptions but use your best judgment :).

Please do your best not to read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

My rankings aren’t simply based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This means I’m taking into account speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and everything else that happens as soon as you walk into the chamber.

Austin Keefe (he/him)

University of Arkansas (akeefe@uark.edu)

Public Forum/Congress/Lincoln Douglas/IPDA

Howdy, I am a former public forum/Lincoln Douglass and a current IPDA varsity debater for The University of Arkansas and have been doing debate for about 6 years competitively. I'm a simple man, any homophobia, racism, xenophobia will immediately lose you the round and 20 speaker points. Just don't, it's not worth it. Please time yourself, if I have to call you out for a time, it'll hurt speaks so just time yourself.

Public Forum

I am a big framework guy so for me to flow it to your side it needs to be thoroughly tied to your case and brought up often. If you do concede to your opponent's framework then I need a card or an extremely valid reason why. Weighing and magnitude also don't hurt when flowing as it gives me a lens for the debate. Personally, I believe debates peak during crossfire. Use your time wisely and don't ask cupcake questions that drag out time. I am an aggressive-style type debater and love it when there is a high-volume clash and argumentation. I don't want free melatonin in the form of a lame crossfire so make the most of it. Lastly, signposting will be crucial to cross-applying arguements. I need to be able to understand your arguments to be able to clearly lay out your case. That being said I can understand spreading but if you do, there will need to be a speech doc shared beforehand.

Lincoln Douglas

Traditional LD is my stuff and I'll be able to follow a case very well. I have had Progressive rounds so I will still be able to flow K's, meta-theory, disclosure theory, tricks, etc... I don't specifically have a preference over the other but I do prefer a traditional case-vs-case debate but if you bring in a K, I'll be able to follow. If you don't need to fill the speech time, don't. I'd have a better time flowing your arguments to you if you condense it down to 5 minutes rather than trying to ramble on for the extra 2 minutes.

Congress

I love congress speeches because they are able to provide humor in the serious world of debate. Funny and entertaining intros will help me tie your case to your points and enjoy your speech more. Evidence is just as important in these speeches though and I will take all of your speech with a grain of salt if there isn't a source to back it up. Also, if we have spent 40+ minutes on a single bill, please do not run a constructive speech (unless its new information) that just reiterates past representative's speeches. It makes your speech appear weak and ill founded. Refutation speeches are pretty rad as it provides clash in the debate so try to do that.

Literally any other debate style

Just speak clearly and I think I am capable enough to follow through with your case/argument.

Speaks

The worst amount of speaker points I'll give is a 27 (unless you are being rude, yelling, racist, you know, the no-no stuff). I throw a 30 here and there but I'll need very good signposting, crossfire, and speeches. But in general, if you speak well enough to understand, a 28 is in your grasp. Going overtime will hurt your speaks (over the 10 second grace period) so don't do that.

Misc.

All in all, its you vs. your opponents where y'all are yelling about topics way above our pay grade. Just enjoy it, it's an event where people are forced to listen to you rant about stuff you spent too much time researching. Spend 5 minutes before your round watching this video rather than spam-prepping. Have fun g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJZeNY6dKo&ab_channel=Lucasamiel0406

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Hello!

I am a parent volunteer judge. Please speak slowly if you can.

For further questions after round, email venkatkodak@gmail.com.Use this email to include me in email chains as well, but this should only be for Policy Debate which I try to avoid judging.

For me, the most important thing in a debate round is respect! Any racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or discriminatory/demeaning comments or arguments will result in an immediate loss.

Most importantly, have fun! I look forward to judging you!

adi (he/him)

then: little rock central

adithyakom@gmail.com

i have zero familiarity with anything and everything. please explain acronyms and assume I have zero topicality knowledge (no idea what qualifies as topical, aff/neg bias, etc.)

I: Background

If it matters to you, I read critical strategies both affirmative and negative and debated them in a technical manner. This has influenced the way I judge and evaluate arguments, but not my argumentative preferences. I hated judge intervention as a competitor and hate it even more as a judge, so don't make me do it. Tabula rasa is not a thing- I'll evaluate what you put on the table to the absolute best of my ability. Judge instruction, contextualization, and impact calculus delivered in a clear, concise manner will win my ballot.

Section II. Miscellaneous

If you are problematic, I will do some combination of the following: leave, kill your speaks, hand you an L, and/or contact your coaches.

Finesse/confidence is distinct from disrespect/degradation.

Embedded Clash- I love K Tricks and 2NC overviews with offense but these arguments need structure by the 2NR for me to vote on them.

Section III. Critical Affirmatives

Pref me as a 1 or a 2.

I really don't care how in the direction of the topic you are but explain your method clearly and concisely. I don't think that aff teams need to win that the ballot is key for their method.

For aff teams:

Against framework: I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good.

I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important here as these debates can become muddled extremely quickly. I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than a flurry of meaningless k tricks designed to bog down the other team.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

Section IV: Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates. For the immigration topic: I agree with the general consensus that topical affs must provide legal permanent residence.

Section V: Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my thing. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

I AM NOT JUDGE KICKING YOUR CP UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY TELL ME I SHOULD DO SO.

Section VI: Theory

If you read vague alts, I'm not evaluating it. I'm serious. Until someone can tell me what makes vague alts less vague than the actual alternative being read, I refuse to evaluate it. If you want to waste your time trying to convince me to evaluate it, and successfully do so, I will give you a 30.

Condo is the only reason to reject the team other than ethics violations. Other stuff = reject the argument. I find theory to be rather subjective, so impacting it out with some type of warrant is your best chance to win me over. Reading your blocks will not save you. Taking your analysis beyond your blockscan save you.

Section VII: Parting Thoughts

Be nice to your partner/opponents. Enjoy yourself. Don't worry so much about the numbers.

I am a freshman at the University of Arkansas and competed for all four years of high school. My Experience is mainly in Public Forum, Congress, and some IPDA/ LD.

First and foremost I value respect in debate.  Homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, etc. are not tolerated in debate and will result in a downvote.

In Congress, I want to see an interaction between arguments and for competitors to actively address points from other representatives. Remember congress mashes speech and debate it's not just about what you say but also how you say it. As do most congress judges, I do not want to see a one-sided debate. If you step in to keep the flow of debate going it will not go unnoticed. Lastly, I'm a sucker for funny/ creative intros. again treat your fellow representatives with respect and have fun!

In PF/ IPDA I also want to see direct interaction of arguments don't just tell me your opponent is wrong, tell me why. Add nuance to your arguments. I should not have to connect the dots. Weighing!!! please weigh your arguments and again explain why they outweigh/ should be valued over your opponents. I do not judge questioning so if you want me to judge something based on a question/ answer make sure you bring it up in your speech. again no -phobias or -isms be respectful. Lastly, keep it fun and if you make me laugh I'll give you an extra speaker point!

In Lincoln Douglas I prefer Traditional but I can keep up with progressive. With that being said if you spread please send me a link to your case. I prefer line by line, but as long as you signpost it is not a huge issue (I keep a pretty detailed flow). I will not fill in gaps this goes for any style of debate if you want me to think it you need to say it I won't connect the dots for you. I typically vote Truth> tech but I am not hard set It really depends on the way the round is going and how the arguments are presented. V & VC are important to how I vote, however, if it is not being used much in the round (by both opponents I can look past it. Once again be respectful and have fun!

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

I would appreciate respectful and friendly interactions.  Please speak clearly and project your voice. Please be sure to be straightforward and clear in your wording. Have fun. 

I am Jacob McElroy, a practicing litigation attorney at Mitchell Williams law firm. I have been practicing for around 5 years. This is my first time judging a debate competition but I am excited for the opportunity. As an attorney, I like creative arguments that tend to make the audience reevaluate their positions. 

I have been a part of the Cabot Debate program for four years, one year of CX and three years of PF. Most of my experience and understanding lies in PF, so please try to avoid excessive amounts of theory. I also have a firm understanding of Student Congress and IPDA. I can judge CX at a basic level.

Generally speaking, I prefer a few good arguments over a large quantity of mediocre ones. Don’t card dump. I tend to focus more on ideas in cards as opposed to last names so if you want to extend an argument please repeat the tagline to help me out with flowing. Because I don’t like card dumping, I don’t really consider myself to be Tech > Truth, however at the same time it definitely makes my job easier when all of the voters on both sides have been responded to. If your opponent has a flimsy link chain, point that out because I will gladly vote on it if it has been addressed. Crossfire/Cross examination are probably my favorite thing in debate, and you can rack up a lot of speaker points if you perform well during those times. That said, they don’t go onto the flow, so make sure to bring up any important concessions during your speeches.

As far as CX goes I’ll say my experience is minimal, so go slightly slower than usual and be patient. If you are going to spread I will flow to the best of my ability, but that said I cannot flow what I don’t hear. If you wish to flash or email me your case that would be helpful. I’m a fan of counter plans, but be wary that if permutation is an option and there aren’t any significant drawbacks to it I will vote on it. As far as Kritiks go I’m okay with you running them, but make sure to explain very clearly why it matters enough that I should be voting on it. I have an extremely high threshold for Topicality. I wouldn’t recommend reading T unless the plan is unrelated to the resolution to a degree that makes it blatantly abusive.

Largely similar to CX. I would prefer you didn't spread, and if you do I will only flow what I hear clearly. I'm okay with whatever theory you want to run, topicality probably isn't going to win you many points with me unless something is blatantly abusive. Make sure I can clearly understand what your value and value criterion are, why I should prefer them for the round, and how you achieve them better than your opponent.

Public Forum is designed to prepare speakers for (shocker here) Public Forums, and I therefore find it counter intuitive to use excessive amounts of debate lingo in this type of debate. I normally have pretty decent topic knowledge, but other than that pretend that I’m just your average Joe. I prefer that both sides collapse by the end. You should still be refuting points in summary, but definitely start streamlining the arguments into voters for me. By Final Focus there should be maybe 2-3 things that each side wants me to vote on. New argument won't be flowed during this speech. Crystalize your impacts and explain why they outweigh your opponents.

Congress is primarily a speaking event. You are looking to sound persuasive above all. Speak smoothly, signpost, and make me WANT to believe you. It's a little bit more abstract but that's just the way congress is. Knowing procedure well is a bonus but don't freak out if you have to ask a point of information to figure something out. I love questioning, make it interesting for me (but do try to remain civil).

IPDA is IPDA. Talk to me like I'm your friend. Make everything simple enough that I can follow. You can determine if a topic is "serious" or not, and I'm totally fine if you want to run unconventional forms of arguments.

Finally, have fun with it. Debate should be an enjoyable academic exercise for everyone participating. Remember that you can be assertive and still remain civil. If you want to read unconventional arguments I’m fine with that, just make sure that you flesh them out well. Good luck.

I am a parent judge with little experience judging debate. I will base my evaluation on the guidelines of the National Speech and Debate Association, utilizing judging tips provided by the association.

Hello debaters and debate enthusiasts,

In evaluating debaters, I prioritize three key factors:

1. Convincing Arguments: Debaters must present well-structured, evidence-backed arguments.

2. Conciseness: Clarity and brevity in argument presentation are important for effective communication.

3. Respectful Conduct and Effective Use of Humor: Debaters should maintain respect for opponents and the topic and using humor (when appropriate) is highly recommended :).

My votes will go to debaters who excel in these three areas. Let's have a lively and enlightening debate!

Experience:  Debate competitor in high school in policy debate, student congress, and extemporaneous speaking 1990-1993.  

I am a detail oriented person and will be flowing the rounds.  I will be looking for good organization of your arguments and  supporting evidence.   A confident posture, eye contact, and clear articulation will get my attention and go a long way towards winning your debate.   I also ask that you respect your opponent and speak to them the way that you would like to be spoken to.  

Have fun and use all of your time, I want to hear what you have to say!

Hello, Debaters, Speakers, and Interpreters! I'm Tonya Reck, and I'm a theatre director and forensics coach at Sheridan School District in Sheridan, AR. I've taught Theatre, Communication, Speech, and Debate in public school for nine years (plus a lot more) in Texas and Arkansas.

For Tabroom:

I have experience judging most events, and I'm willing to judge any debate, congress, or forensics event style. I'm glad to hear all students and support their progress and achievements.

Students:

First, let me say how glad I am that you are participating in a Speech and Debate tournament. I am here to help you advance in life and public speaking. I am also here to celebrate your accomplishments! Win or lose your round, there is so much to gain by participating in debate, and I hope I can help to move you forward.

Are you new to debate?

If you are a novice debater- have no fear! I hope I can help you recognize your strengths and help you get to the next level. EVERYONE starts somewhere. Huge props for stepping into debate! Pretty much everyone starts learning from zero. All that is expected of you is to be the best you can be here today, right, now, just as you are. You don't have to be like anyone else. Just bring your best and do that. And then don't stop. Keep learning and don't give up. You will get better every time.

Are you an experienced Debater?

If you are experienced and ready to try new things- OK. I want to support students who are trying new things, taking intellectual risks, and learning new ways of doing things. Stay intellectually humble and gracious to all your opponents. Learn something new from every judge and every competitor. Keep growing. Keep it fresh. Listen to yourself- are you repeating debate clichés? Using jargon? Would the average person in Wal-Mart on Saturday night understand you? Are you persuading and compelling the judge9s)? Is this an info dump? Are you making the most of every round? What are your debate goals? What do you need to do to get there? Are you doing it?

Are you nervous?

Be prepared. Be rehearsed. Be well-researched. Be organized. Put your energy into your debate.

What do I like to see from you in a round?

Give me the best you've got. This round is for you to shine and grow. Follow the rules, but otherwise, go for it.

I think we are all here to learn. I'm still learning, too! So, seek first to understand. Then be understood.

I like to think that this is a marketplace of ideas. So, if you are reading this a few days ahead- take this debate topic to the dinner table; to people who see life a little differently from you. Talk to children. Have honest conversations with real people. Find out how they think. How do they see your ideas? If it doesn't work on the street-- it might not fly in the round either.

How important is professionalism?

Very. Sportsmanship, kindness, humility, integrity, understanding. All of these will get you a long way in life and in debate. Ask yourself some questions. Who have I enjoyed debating against the most? Who has treated me the best as an opponent? What do I expect of myself? How can I raise the level of the round and the tournament?

What about Debate Ethics and Equality?

How you treat others says a lot about you. Experienced debaters and congressional debaters, please note. Even small behaviors that might mean to diminish another will actually diminish yourself. Be mindful of your humility. Be mindful of the humanity of others. Realize that you come into every round as equals with equal chances.

Does nonverbal communication matter?

Absolutely. So often, it's not what we say but how we say it. True in life and debate.

Do I have pet peeves?

Of course.

Talking too fast, debate jargon, lack of humility.

Cardinal sins?

Yes. Play by the book. Don't falsely accuse your opponent of breaking the rules. It's OK to be on the offense and be forward. But don't get out of bounds or run over people to get to the top of the heap. This applies to life as well as debate. I often quote from the rules and official ballots in the comments.

Speech and Interpretation

Give us the very best that you've got. If you are reading this well in advance of the tournament, start quality pieces of literature for interpretation. Then be true to what is going on in the piece, and above all, be true to yourself. The best pieces create the illusion of the first time. Something that seems effortless, genuine, and sincere. Well-rehearsed in a way that doesn't seem like something that was ever rehearsed. These pieces will always take the 1 on the ballot. Likewise, pieces that still are shaky on the memory work, awkward in blocking, unclear in characterization, etc., will not pull out a miracle. Hard work ahead of time - investing in yourself and your work- will pay off.

New to Speech and Interp

The very best thing you can do is just to get in there and start doing it. Of course, no one is perfect the first time(s) they try something. We just keep working and getting better and better. The best have learned from the best. Make a note of what people are doing and how that is working for them. Find things - every time- that you can do. There is so much to matching the piece to the performer. Every minute you spend finding and cutting a piece for your talents is well invested. Keep growing. Don't let the initial bumps discourage you. It's not where you start that matters.

Finally

In short, do all the good things your teacher taught you. Bring the very best you can, and I will do my best for you to walk away with some solid advice to move forward as a debater.

I'm pulling for each of you and wish you the best in the tournament and life! Good luck!

Hello Debaters! I'm excited to be judging Tiger's Eye this year. This is my 3rd or 4th time judging debate tournaments. While I didn't debate in school, my oldest son has been in debate for several years and I've learned a great deal about the events from him. I'm a curious lifelong learner with degrees in Physics and Math (undergraduate), Business (Masters), and International Policy (Masters). I enjoy thinking critically about current and historical events. You will impress me if you make strong arguments with good reason and analytical rigor and you do so while showing appropriate humility and self awareness and demonstrating respect for your opponent. Don't compensate for poor reason and logic by being too aggressive. Most of all, be yourself and have fun! 

Jonathan Roath

I Co-teach High School Biology

11 years working in SPED at the elementary and high school settings.

1 year Speech and Debate assistant coach.

Took 2 Debate classes in High School.

I like facts and supporting those facts. I like honesty in a speech and do not hold back information that is supported and not just an opinion. Enlighten me !!

danielaudreycole@gmail.com

daniel please, Not judge and definitely not sir

So who is this random guy?

POST JUDGING TWO CIRCUIT TOURNAMENTS THOUGHTS:

I don't know if I just did not care about it when I debated and judged regularly last year, or if there was some committee meeting where people decided just to toss evidence ethics completely out the window. It seems even worse than before. I saw a card that was tagged "Iran key for nuke war" then the card said in tiny unhighlighted font... "5 places where war could go nuclear." Authors, even at very credible websites write speculative pieces and opinion pieces that are being weaponized by debaters for cards with absolutely no regard to whether or not it is actually what the card says with context. Making something size 5 font does not make it go away if I catch anyone doing this... I will stop paying attention and drop you. No questions asked. I don't care if I'm the only one in the community that cares about this, if you can't be bothered to edit your case so it meets very high standards of evidence ethics, then PLEASE strike me.

Policy debater at Houston Memorial (2022), TFA, and NSDA Qualifier with a horrendous record at National Circuit tournaments- Arkansas 26(Not debating)

I judge mostly these days for fun, and far less than I used to. I cover sports in my spare time for sports illustrated, Slow down from top speed.

Speaker Points: 30s for all, call me lazy but I've got enough crap to do as a judge, I'm not sorting through the minutia of what the difference is between a 30 and 29,6...

There are two major exceptions to this rule:

1. Unnecessary showmanship and/or general rudeness... Don't spread if you don't have to... Don't run 7 off if you don't have to... Don't cut your opponent off in cross every question... you know the usual stuff...
2. Evidence ethics... This is DIFFERENT THAN MOST OTHER JUDGES... You should not highlight one sentence from the card and then make the rest of the text incredibly small to make the context of the card impossible to read. The general rule of thumb, is if the author of the article came in and listened to you read the card, would they feel comfortable with the way you have represented the card? If not, please recut..., I will drop your speaks to 27.5 without saying a word, your opponent does not even have to say anything (although if you stake the round on it, I am certainly willing to sign and deliver my ballot if you are correct). It won't change the rest of the debate, I won't even mention it in my RFD. Trust me, as someone who writes content that gets published online for a job, we do NOT write articles with debate in mind... cut them as such, do not cut a sentence out of an article, just because it is a fire link to your DA. (See longer rant above)

Pref Shortcuts(LD)-

LARP-1

(Real theory-Condo, T Violations vs LARP AFF, etc.) 1-2

Phil-3

K-4

Trix-The cereal is for 3-year-olds, and so is this kind of debate :)

This used to be a heck of a lot longer, I’m convinced that most of y’all didn’t read that disorganized mess. This is how you should think of me as a judge. A former policy debater that went strictly topic related T and Policy stuff and a few basic Ks. Slightly out of practice but judged 50+ circuit LD rounds last year.

I started judging when my daughter was in the Forensics/Debate program in Bentonville. This is my 6th year to judge.

I'll take lots of notes and like clear, concise, and logical arguments.

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples and evidence.

When presenting evidence include citations after introduction of article.

The focus should be winning the debate, not attacking a persons style or any method flaws.  Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. 

Respect towards your opponent is paramount. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away....

I was a Forensic and Debate participant from 1978 to 1980 at my high school in Kansas City.  In 1978 - 1979, I was the #1 ranked team debater in the Greater Kansas City conference and the Missouri West division.  In forensics, I participated in Humorous Interpretation, Impromptu, Duet Acting, Extemporaneous, and Oratory. During the start of the 1979-80 school year, my partner and I were the first to put all of our debate evidence on a PC and coded the database to print out in a brief during cross examination.  We were summarily kicked off of the circuit as (we were told) computers had no place in a debate and using them was just a form of intimidation.  How times have changed...

Following high school, I received a BA in Speech/Theatre with a minor in 2ndary education from Avila University in KC, where I starred in a number of plays and directed/performed in a community theater run of "The Music Man".  I was an instructor at Park University teaching theatre in the early 80's and have done some radio, TV, and professional acting in the KC and St. Louis areas. After working and teaching in the KC area for several years, I moved to Boston where I began work marketing and developing consumer packaged goods.  I completed my MBA in 2003.  

I am currently a senior director of consumer insights for Nestle's Walmart business for the global leader in CPG data, Information Resources, Inc.  I reside in Rogers with my wife and my ward.

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

I judge based on organization & facts backed up by reliable sources.
Please speak clearly and at a regular pace. Be confident!!!!
p.s—NO pen clicking

Last updated 2/19/2023

2026 / University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Debated at Little Rock Central (AR), Policy and Congress

Put me on the email chain @ ellewalters2@gmail.com

tl;dr– Keep it interesting and don't be problematic

Congress

I am not here to listen to you play devil's advocate

There's a difference between taking unpopular ground (necessary) and saying things that are racist/classist/ableist/sexist/etc... (you're getting dropped). The marks of a good competitor are a) the ability to find creative argumentsfor an unpopular side and b) the ability to steer the chamber away from debating a bill that demands problematic speech on one side.

If you're planning to say something offensive/problematic just to get a speech in, you would probably be better off staying silent. In other words, check yourself.

That being said,

I like- clearly defined impacts and framework, unique intros, funny comments

I do not like- rehash, platitudes, stupid questions

I'm most concerned with hearing how your argument fits in the context of the round and the arguments of the speaker before you- my highest ranks go to speakers that give good refutation and weigh the round's impacts.Congress is only interesting and educational if you actually engage in debate,so that will always be most important when scoring and ranking.

Clarity, vocal variation, and engagement are also important. Blippy speakers are ok, but monotonous, incoherent or clearly scripted speakers are not

I don't flow questions, but I do take activity into account

Decorum is less important, proper parliamentary procedure is more important

Deductions–

If you're reading a speech straight/verbatim from paper or a computer for the majority of your speaking time, that's an automatic 2 pt. deduction.

If y'all say something silly like "I begin on my first word" it's an automatic 1 pt deduction

General (policy, ld, etc...)

I'm a much better judge for a K round than 6 off.

If the aff can prove they're reasonably topical, that's enough for me– I have high bar for voting the aff down on topicality alone. I'm much more interested in FW on the K than T or theory debates on the CP. (It's not like I have to be interested in your arguments to judge them, but I have a very short attention span. If I'm super into it, my decision will probably be a lot better.)

Fairness is a mid impact. Education almost always outweighs and I lean truth over tech.

At this point assume zero topic knowledge

Hey guys, I'm a sophomore at UARK and you can call me Judge, Brice, Judge Witt, Mr. Guy Man, whatever, honestly. I've competed in PF and Congress, both in-state and out-of-state, and went to NSDA Nationals my sophomore and senior years. I've also dabbled in CX a little. LD is what I'm least familiar with but I can comprehend arguments, will flow, and will make the most fair decision.

All Styles minus Congress:

I am a flow judge meaning I will base my decision off the flow, nothing else. I will listen to cross-examination, if I hear something interesting, incorrect, or otherwise, I will write it down, but it shouldn't effect my decision (unless your opponent calls you out for something you said in cross in a speech).

SPEED. I am fine with some speed, no spreading though, but if you're talking a bit faster be clear. If you are not clear or are speaking too fast, I will put my pen down, will not flow, and will then not be able to judge you properly. In summary, PLEASE BE CLEAR.

WEIGH. If you don't weigh for me, I will end up weighing myself and you may or may not like the outcome.

EXTENDING AND DROPS. If you don't extend evidence for me, I will point it out on my flow and if your opponent points it out and tells me why that matters, you won't be able to win it. Shadow extending is risky, I may flow it and let it slide, but don't count on it occurring. If you drop something, I point it out on my flow, and your opponent discusses it and why it matters, I will give them the argument as long as they extend.

EVIDENCE. If an opponent asks for a card, please be able to supply it in a timely manner, if not I will resort to running some of your prep time. I don't expect to ask for a card after the round, but I will do so if my decision comes down to it or a competitor specifically asks me to call for the evidence in a speech (or I just wanna see it hehe).

Policy Specific:

I don't think I will ever judge this, but if I do, I'm sorry and I will try my absolute best. If you spread, I may miss some things but I don't think it'll be too bad.

PF Specific:

Ah PF, my main style. I am fine with either paraphrasing or carded evidence, however, if you paraphrase, you'd better have the carded, properly cited, properly highlighted evidence if I call for it. I will be very displeased if you make me search through an article or tell me "control f this..." just cut the evidence.

I personally enjoyed progressive argumentation in PF, meaning things like K’s, theory, etc., but because those can make the debate unfair to an unprepared opponent, I will ask that if you plan to run something like this, ask your opponents before the round if it’s okay. 

I do not allow for either sticky offense or sticky defense. This just means to be sure to cover both sides when being the first speaker.

First rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, use all of your time, even if you have to restate your own case. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.

Second rebuttal, answer AND interact with your opponents case, answer what they said on yours, and use all of your time. If you want to weigh at the end you can, weighing earlier makes my decision easier.

Summary, group arguments and answer what your opponent said. You have 3 minutes so use it wisely, extend, and weigh at the end or throughout. Set your partner up in the FF, it's like an alley-oop, you set your partner up for the dunk.

FF, VOTERS. Just tell me reasons why you win the debate, offer me some weighing and DUNK THAT THANG.

Congress Specific: There’s not really much I should need to say here, but just speak well, follow parliamentary procedure, don’t just read a speech, and speak eloquently and with conviction.

LD Specific:

I've only ever judged LD and have never debated in it, however, I will be able to judge properly if I am your judge.

I can evaluate K's somewhat as I did run them here and there, just please not overly complicated ones.

Make sure you give your value and value criterion so I know how to judge.

Please ensure you extend, go line-by-line, and relate what you're discussing to the value and value criterion.

Speaker points:

Use good word economy. I won't be mean when it comes to speaks, ever. That being said I also won’t inflate them and everyone will start off at a 28.

Ways to increase speaker points:

Be polite, courteous, etc.

Have good time management, organization, and line-by-line.

Be efficient and make sure you’re clear, especially if online.

If you tell me a good joke before the round I will increase your speaks by .2. If it's not good I will reduce your speaks by .2. Choose wisely.

Ways to lose speaker points:

Being inefficient with and/or not using all of your time, not knowing your case/evidence.

Being rude, disrespectful, demeaning, etc. *Note this does not mean you cannot get into a back and forth with your opponent during cross, because, if done right, it’ll enhance the quality of the debate.

If you are a(the) superior debater(s), showing humility will go a long way, however, not will cause you to lose speaker points.

Ways to automatically lose the round, get a 25 speaker point score, and have me talk to your coach/tab:

You are explicitly racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. Debate is supposed to be a safe place for all individuals, let’s keep it that way, please.

If there’s an email chain I would like to be on it: lolwhatsacp@gmail.com

If you have any questions before the round, please ask and I’ll be more than happy to answer, but if you ask me what my paradigm is, I will first ask if you checked on tab and if you say no, I will not tell you everything, and maybe nothing.

Good luck to everyone! You’re all talented and I hope I get to judge you!!