Debate- I always choose a winner based on rebuttals and final speeches. I favor the team that shows the most clash while also defending their own contentions. I can handle fast talking as long as the debater can speak quickly while still being intelligible.

Congress- I appreciate a good road map in the speech intro and solid examples that support your contentions. I also highly rate representatives that are active questioners.

Speech- Clear organization is very important, I need to be able to follow your speech. As far as delivery, I really notice and appreciate speakers who incorporate vocal variety and make consistent eye contact.

Briefest possible summary

Former policy debater, one hard and fast rule:

1. Read an aff with a plan text. If you don't, I'll vote neg.

Other, but Important

Tech>>Truth

If an argument is new in the 2NR/2AR, it doesn't exist. If the 1AR reads a new advantage, or the neg block a new off-case position, no they didn't. I take a pretty firm stance here, debate is about clash so you need to say your arguments early enough for others to clash with them.

Be nice to each PLEASE. This is a fun activity, I get that from your side of the room it is very stressful and competitive, but from my side of the room it is not nearly that serious. Just try to get closer to my side of the room sometimes, I guess is what I'm saying.

I'd prefer to disclose, unless we're in a time crunch. Please ask me questions or argue with me in the RFD, that's the best part (I'm being very close to fully serious).

T

I loved, loved T as a debater and would like to see more 2NRs on T! I think that having a clear internal link chain from violation to fairness/education is important and a neglected area that negatives often skip over.

I have never, and may never, understand what "reasonability" is or how to evaluate it. I'm willing to vote for neg on T if they do it well, even if the aff is really common or clearly intended as part of the topic - so affs, don't scandalously undercover T in the 2AC.

Theory

I like a lot of theory arguments. Again, my philosophy is that you need to win the argument here - not just point out how common or obviously okay your practice is. My bias is against both conditionality and speed, so a slow aff team going for condo bad would be a dream for me. I think that good theory debates should look a lot like good T debates: interpretation, violation, internal links, impacts.

I think single-line theory arguments that are expanded into whole speeches if dropped are a cheap trick, but if the theory argument starts off decently fleshed out and has a completed structure (interp, violation, impacts), and then is dropped, I'm likely to vote on it (AKA don't drop theory).

CP

I'm generally skeptical of process-type counterplans, except for states + federalism. In fact, I probably lean aff on CP theory mostly.

I tend towards the position that the aff plan is as vague or specific as necessary to allow for permutations to process CPs (e.g. supreme court CP) and that fiat usually prevents a link to any attached politics DAs. That said, this is just my personal bias and I have been convinced by politics DA + process CP before.

DA

I love me a good nuclear war impact as much as any policy nerd. Straight turns are cool, but I also like affirmative defense on DAs. A lot of internal link chains are really shaky, if the aff hits this hard, I'm willing to assign 0% risk of extinction and ignore the flow.


Ks

I was a K debater for much of my time in debate, on both the aff and neg. That said, I'm pretty convinced that affs should have plan texts and try to be topical.

I like Ks with links, and am skeptical of the link in many instances. This should inform your affirmative strategy against a K!

History

Former policy debater from Juan Diego, with some, limited, national success (won a bid to the TOC my Junior year). I was a 2N my whole career. I did the education, immigration, arms sales, and criminal justice topics.

This is my first-year judging. I may have questions, so patience is appreciated.

I like it when you tell me your name and start with a teaser (road map and framework; they help a lot to see whether you’re sticking with your flow).

General intro:

I’m an engineer and former debater who has judged off and on in the years since, so in general I'm not a lay judge but I'm certainly not a debate pro. As always feel free to ask me any questions at the beginning of the round. For all events respect is important, personal attacks or disrespect towards others in the round can affect ranking.

LD:

Lincoln-Douglas was my passion in my debating years. Here are a few of my views:

• LD is first a foremost a value centered debate not a battle of evidence, you need a framework and to tie each argument to it

• I’m not formalistic in judging LD there are no set rules on how to set up a framework or make arguments

• While I did debate in LD it was a long time ago during an era I've heard referred to as "traditional", as opposed to the more modern progressive era. Traditional LD was more truly value based with less spreading and focus on amount of evidence. But an increased focus on definitions and articulate arguments. I recognize that this can be difficult with many of the modern (non-value based) topics being generated by the NSDA currently.

• I understand that some new era LD coaches push adding "plans" to LD cases I'm not a fan of this in my opinion there is no place for a plan in value debate, I will not expect the other side to provide a counterplan or convert to a more policy/plan based debate if that is the route you choose in your case. That being said I have given the win to debaters who presented plans

Policy:

I was never a policy debater so I'm certainly less skilled than many but I have judged policy a bit so I'm not new to the field. Here are some points I focus on:

• I can handle moderate spreading but certainly not full nationals level speed

• Please speak to the quality of the evidence provided not all cards are equal and I will weigh the strength of the cards against each other.

• Do more than dump evidence, spend time on connecting it clearly to the plans and arguments

PF:

Public Forum is the debate I've judged the least, but given that it is designed to be judged by a non-expert that is the approach I take. Your delivery should be such that an common citizen could understand. Be respectful and share time during cross-fire. I want to see evidence but don't let it become a policy style battle to see who can read the most card with no clear connection between them.

BQ:

I love BQ it reminds me a lot of how LD was in the "good old days" before NSDA forgot how to create LD topics. Keep the arguments directly related to the topic. You get the same topic the entire year so I expect to see very refined cases the later we are in the season.

BQ should be very philosophical, given that while you should have supporting evidence you should also clearly connect it together with your own reasoning in a way that clearly clashes with your opponent.

Extemp:

• Please cite your sources I prefer the source name and a date but at least a name

• Give a definitive answer to the question clearly in the beginning

• You are welcome to time yourself. I will also be timing and have a timer large enough you will likely be able to see it, I usually use it in count up mode so no beeping disturbs your speech.

Obviously I can't list every event here but if you have questions just ask.

I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.

LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.

If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.

Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.

PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I have judged debate before but I am not an experienced policy judge so speak slow and show me clear arguments. I have background knowledge about policy but in order for me to vote into things like topicality. Terms like Perm, mutually exclusive or conditionality or condo (any theory terms ect) will need to be explained (very well) in round. I wouldn't run theory/topicality arguments unless you this it is very likely you will go for them in the final speech. Whoever proves their point best wins. Case debate is good.

Poise, prosody, tone, volume, clarity

Well, I had a much more detailed paradigm here but it has somehow disappeared.

I´m tabula rosa and a policy maker. Competed in policy in HS and coach now. Make sure you have clear impact calc. and clash. I don't like tag teaming during cross. Some speed is ok but don´t try to spread the other team out of the round you will likely lose clarity in the process and some arguments may be missed on my flow. Remember to persuade me, analyze your evidence and explain its meaning within the round clearly do not assume your evidence speaks for itself.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

I see a speaking score at 4 as doing exactly what is expected of you, so a score of 25 is good. I will only give higher scores if I see exceptional talents and abilities.

Evidence is key!!!

IE/Speech: Please make sure you are a clear speaker and keep a good pace (ex. not rushing or going too slow just to fill time) and that your speech is structured appropriately for your event. Be engaging and interesting! I love to see confidence and passion in a round. If your event allows you to add in personal elements please do so, and don't be afraid to properly emote while presenting. (Impromptu speeches that are well structured will rank higher in round)

Debates: Be polite in round, I understand that debate sometimes gets heated but you still must be cordial to your opponents. You are attacking their case, not them. Try your best to use neutral pronouns (they/them) and do not look at your opponents during cross.

I value structure and the flow of the argument, rounds will be decided on whichever argument makes the most logical sense depending on the debate format and which side counters their opponents better and more clearly. Make sure that you attack down the flow and in order, as it keeps your rebuttal speeches organized and it helps me give you better feedback.

Experience: I was primarily a Congressional debater, I also participated in Public Forum, Impromptu, and Extemp (Foreign and National). I have learned the formatting for the other IE’s and debates throughout my time in debate which is why correct structure is valued highly in round.

I am a policy judge. I debated for 3-4 years, coached for 3 more, and have judged for 4ish years now (all policy).

I can understand spewing/spreading/whatever else you call it.

I do not flow cx so if you make a good point you need to bring it up in your next speech or I will not flow it through. If I am typing during cx, I am probably catching up on my notes from the previous speech.

I like judging on impact calc, but the role of the debate is the most important thing to me (if aff or neg does not fulfill their roles, it is an automatic loss). I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way.

***Make sure you flow your arguments through unless you intentionally drop them***

I have no history with debate, but I do have a history with law and business.

I also invite you to write the ballot for me (tell me what arguments you won and why, what arguments they dropped, etc). Structure your rebuttal speeches that way. Showing respect and professionalism is very important. Creating a strong case is just as important as breaking down the other team's case.

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

Tabula Rasa, for the most part. I will reject on my own truly absurd arguments, and I highly value analysis over just card-spewing.

Spread is fine; I did policy in high school and parliamentary debate in college. BUT if your tags are unclear and I don’t get them on the flow, they essentially don’t matter. I don’t share in the email chain of cards. It only matters what is delivered in the speech; I should not have to rely on an email chain to get some clarity about what you are talking about.

If you can’t spread clearly, don’t do it at all.

Policy and other debates - I am a traditionalist in debate in that I believe debate should be training for public communication. I prefer a conversation of ideas, not a speed reading contest with no connection to your opponent. Please watch your speed and listen and respond to your opponents arguments to help strengthen your own.

- give me road maps throughout. Thanks.

- I am not experienced in Policy, except for coaching basics and judging. I learn more from you, so don't be afraid to show me what you know.

Public Speaking: A great public speaker chooses topics that are unique, interesting, and relevant and delivers them with passion and authority. Do not trauma dump on me. It won't work. I will vote for the best speech and speaker, not the most dramatic.

Be respectful and professional. The debate space is not a place for emotional manipulation, fallacious use of accusations, and cheating.

Thank you.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.

4 year policy debater for Liberty University, NDT Qualifier

Current HS Debate coach at Intermountain Christian School

Email chain: ryanwittstock@gmail.com

Things in order of what you're looking for:

Spreading - do it. Go quick, make good arguments and be efficient. If you can't spread without being incomprehensible I will say "clear" during your speech. Slow down if that happens.

My goal is to judge from the flow - everything here is pretty basic but make smart arguments and debate from the flow and you can win in most circumstances

Tech over truth - don't drop arguments even if they are bad. If they are bad, they should be easy to beat.

Condo: I lean to it being good but can be convinced

Theory (besides condo): I lean towards it being a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but can be convinced

Ks: I'm fine with them, but I was not a K debater. Of course I debated against them all the time so I am familiar, but if your theory of power is non-traditional and your impacts are something that I've maybe never heard before slow down.

Try to avoid a K without an alt, or do something like kick the alt. Most Ks are super non-unique without an alt (obviously if your K is more performative this may not apply).

Non-topical affs/framework: This can be a really good debate but normally ends up being bad. Interact with arguments on the flow to win. Fairness might be an impact but normally education is a better impact. I'm not very sympathetic to the "get your education in other rounds" argument.

Cards are important to me. If the debate is good and close it can come down to the cards. I don't like when taglines are longer than cards, that probably means you're lying.

Neg split: New flows in the 2NC are ok (CPs are a little iffy), but don't do new flows in the 1NR. CX over new flows is important.

I think impact turns are great - go for your goofy scenarios if you want