I am an inexperienced judge, and looking forward to participating!

Tabula Rasa; I judge on the flow--don't make assumptions about the validity of any information in the round, you need to defend your evidence. I can handle speed and technical terms, just give clear roadmaps and state where you are on the flow when you're doing rebuttals.

For PF I like to see good quality evidence first and foremost. The team that appears to use the best evidence in the most honest way will most likely receive a winning vote from me.

In LD, evidence is still good, but should not be the focus of the debate. Getting bogged down in a credibility debate with respect to evidence, to me, doesn't seem to be in the spirit of LD debate. My vote in LD rounds will go to the debater that has the better reasoning and better utilizes their value and criterion, with quality and quantity of evidence taking a back seat.

The Debate section:

I’m a fairly relaxed judge.

I prefer professional round etiquette because it shows that you don’t rely on cheap tactics to give you the win. I will judge the round on your main speeches so don’t solely rely on crossfire to make yourself seem cool. Organized argumentation and explanations for evidence are the most effective way to sway me to your side. I’m not a big fan of straight BS. I prefer you to tell me why your BS matters.

Tell me what I should judge the round on.

Don’t rely on me to time for you, give you time signals, or provide an accurate flow. I will try my best to give time signals if asked but I most likely will forget so please don't rely on me. I can provide better critiques overall if you let me just judge you.

SPEED! I am NOT a huge fan of speed talking, I will be ok if you do talk fast. just know that I am not here for it. I want to understand what your argument is.

Grace periods are fine as long as you don’t abuse them. Just finish your thought and stop.

I won’t mainly judge on crossfire, but I can’t stop my ears from hearing your BS (so, please don’t make them bleed).

The Speech section:

This is something I love. So I am very excited for your performance.

I love stories and acting. JUST HAVE FUN and share the message of your story. Act confident when you are on stage. It helps, trust me. I just want to know what I should take away from your speech. please blow me out of the water with your acting and topic.

I believe that having a memorized script is more important than any other aspect. After that, I value characterization and then the cream on top is choreography.

I will let you know if you are almost out of time so you can have your grace period.

About me:

I was a captain of my high school debate team for 3 years ;)

I competed primarily in speech my first year and took home lots of super shiny HI, POI, and DI trophies. I’ve heard and said a lot of BS in my years so if you’re going to rely on it at least make it worth hearing.

In my second year, I ventured into the realm of debate. I could’ve done better. But in the end, Congress stole my heart...and my patience. I also tried LD.

In my third year...everything changed! I leveled up in Congress. Awful —> Mediocre. I dropped LD in the trash and never looked back but BS will always be my closest frenemy.

The part that is of the utmost IMPORTANCE.

Be nice. It’s ok to destroy your opponent but please do it nicely. Also, have fun. Debate isn't the most important thing in the world, so just enjoy it.

If you have any questions about the round or want to tell me I’m an awful/hilarious judge, go ahead.

p.s. If you read the whole thing before round come tell me what you think I could change about my paradigm to make it better. Also, tell me what you think about theater. (I'm going into theater (design) as my major)

I want a clear, concise, well supported argument that clearly responds to an opponent in later arguments. Spewing or talking too fast usually is not clear and does not present a compelling argument.

Experience: I have competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years in highschool. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

I've been involved in speech and debate for eight years.

DEBATE:

Overall: Be respectful, be clear, and impact your arguments.

SPEECH/IEs:

Overall: Have a clear structure and be engaging.

Hello! I’m currently a U student doing econ and international studies. I did 4 years of PF at a few different schools, and I've competed in other events including BQ, and some IEs. I qualed for nats and made state every year, so I know a few things :)

I’m pretty relaxed about judging, just make sure you’re clear in all your speeches.

• Please make it organized. I will be flowing, and going in that order during your speeches makes everything easier for all of us to follow you, and for me to vote you up.

• Framework debates can get confusing, so make sure to explain and uphold them if you have something other than CBA.

• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow. Just tell me the order, and start time.

• Make sure to extend. If you talk about it in case/cross then drop it till FF, I’m not gonna weigh it!!

• You must answer all turns/offense in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary, or else it gets dropped.

• Lean on the side of over-explaining things, I don't know this topic. This is also good practice for your lay judges who don’t know what’s happening, and it shows me that you actually know what you’re talking about.

• I don’t care about speed, but make sure it’s reasonable. We all need to understand you. If I can’t, you’ll know (hand gesture, weird face, etc)

What I’m looking for

• Voters. Tell me why you should win.

Some other things

• I won't flow cross, but I judge it for speaks. If you get a concession, bring it up in the next speech.

• I’m not timing you, please don’t ask. Grace periods are fine, but don’t make it too long. Just finish the thought and sit down.

• Don’t be weird or mean to your opponents. It’s not impressive, and any weird racist/sexist/homophobic/ad hominem comments won’t be tolerated! Just be civil.

• As for speaks, just do your best, I think they’re a dumb tie-breaker, and I’ll try to give you all good scores. If it’s low, you were probably not civil.

• Just have fun! Yes this is stressful, but remember that you’re here to learn, and it’s not the end of the world if you make mistakes. We're just little peeps on a big floating rock, and it’s not that deep. Enjoy yourself!!!

• I’ll try to be as helpful as I can with comments on your ballots. If you have any questions, concerns, hopes, or dreams, feel free to awkwardly approach me or email me :) charlizeelara@gmail.com

Speak clearly, make eye contact, be respectful to other team members. I will look for fact / logical based coverage by each team in the topics I judge.

My name is Andrew Liew, and I'm just some random college freshman who used to do pf debate (badly).

General Paradigm:

• I am a flow judge
• I probably don't have much knowledge on the topic, so try to avoid unexplained acronyms or jargon.
• If an illogical/unsupported argument is not refuted, it will be treated as true. I generally try to vote like I know nothing about anything before the round starts.
• I'm bad at flowing, please clearly state which of your opponent's contentions you are addressing
• I don't flow cross-Ex. If something important comes up, bring it up in a speech.
• Address theory with theory: real world > imaginary world, so you can't beat theory with normal impacts. I will vote on abusive uses of theory if it goes unaddressed.
• Give me voters and framework ("If (aff/neg) proves _________, then you should vote (aff/neg), because x, y, z. This is how we prove ___________")

For LD:

Make sure your value/criteria is reasonable for both sides and connect it to the resolution. Explain why yours is best. I prefer more moral debates in LD, but I'll use the best supported value/framework to judge (no matter what it is).

For Policy:

I've seen some policy debates. If you can provide an explanation of why your theory should earn you the win, that would help (why theory > issues). I won't mark you down for spewing, but I can't vote on arguments I can't understand.

For PF:

If you have a framework, please explain why it is better than your opponents. If you don't have a framework, be prepared to use your opponent's.

CBA is not a framework.

For Speech:

I really shouldn't be here. Sorry in advance :(

Hey! My name is Rian (he/him) and I am a 1st-year at the University of Utah (no longer debating, unfortunately). I mainly did PF through high school, but I have dabbled in both Policy and LD.

PF: I like debaters to center their arguments around stock issues (significance, solvency, inherency, etc) and weighing (ie. impact calc). Presenting a framework (preferably not just CBA) is a great way to let me know exactly how I should vote, if you don't have a framework be prepared to use your opponents. Make sure I know how each argument ties back to the prevailing framework of the round!

A few more things:

• I don't flow Cross-Ex, so be sure to bring up anything that happens during questioning in your speeches.
• Bring up specific voters in your Final Focus! Even if your opponents drop a contention, I won't count it unless you point it out.
• Try not to get bogged down in arguments regarding sources. I understand it is sometimes important to contextualize arguments but don't let it get in the way of your contentions/rebuttals.

IF YOU ARE NOT DOING PF AND ARE STUCK WITH ME AS A JUDGE I AM SORRY AND I WILL TRY MY BEST.

Policy: Please make stock issues very clear to me. Feel free to run stuff like t-shells, disads, critiques (or any other theory), etc., I will try my best to follow.

LD: Novice debaters, please do not throw around the rhetoric of “achieving the criterion” without any substantial explanation. Similarly, the "burden of the Aff" needs to be substantially justified within the context of the round.

For all debaters: I like to judge off my flow, so make sure you make everything clear and easy for me to flow. Even if something seems obvious (like a dropped contention), make sure to bring it up!

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask before the round starts :)

I am a lay judge.

Speak persuasively and clearly. I am unfamiliar with most jargon. Please use roadmaps and signposting.

Be respectful and kind to your opponents. Bigotry will not be tolerated.

Debate is supposed to be fun - prove it!

I debated all four years of high school splitting my time between LD and Policy pretty evenly. I debated on the National Circuit in LD, so I have a good grasp of both traditional and progressive LD so feel free to debate in the debate style you're more comfortable with. That being said I love a good progressive LD round, but won't be upset if the round ends up being traditional. I'm good with speed but only if both you and your opponent are both good with it. Please be RESPECTFUL, be KIND, and have a fun round!

email for the chain: 16annapage@gmail.com

I am first and foremost an LD judge, and haven't had much experience in other debate formats like Policy or PF. As a result, I will be disclosing my paradigm for LD exclusively here.

LD: I prefer you to err on the side of traditional debate, as I don't have much experience with Policy or concepts that originate from there, nor do I have much experience with things such as Ks. However, I do quite like counterplans and would encourage running them if you have them available.

I value well-research contentions and framework above all else -- providing evidence is great. I would suggest you avoid trying to appeal to my emotions; LD is a morality-based debate, but I will vote based primarily on if your evidence is strongest regardless of my moral leanings.

Signposting is highly encouraged! I do like a very clear-structured debate and am not very partial to chaos. Please try to avoid spreading - speak clearly so I can understand you. I will let you know one time throughout the debate if I cannot understand you, but will not flow if you continue to speak at a level I can't understand.

I am relatively generous in terms of speaker points, but I will not hesitate to dock you if I find you to be disrespectful towards your opponent.

Lincoln-Douglas: I vote heavily on v/cr, flow, and moral arguments. I'm a very traditional (this is a huge hint) LD judge, do not spread! K's/Theory arguments are a slippery slope, but if you do it right I will never vote you down. Jargon is ok, but this is LD, try and stay away from it! Round presence is also very important to me, be professional, be polite, and have fun! I care more about you making quality arguments rather than addressing EVERY SINGLE point. I will absolutely vote you down for sliming in the affirmative summary.

Policy: I will stoneface you hahaha. Win solvency, jargon is ok. Spreading is ok as long as I can understand you.

Public-Forum: Flow and quality of evidence is important. Framework is ok, in fact I kind of like it because of my LD background. Round presence is also very important to me, be professional, be polite, and have fun!

I'm a flow judge for PF, LD, and Policy. I competed in PF throughout high school and I now compete in Parli for the U of U. I'll list more specific information for each event below, but most of all, be respectful and have a good time! Debate is meant to be educational and fun!

PF:

TLDR: Be nice, tech is fine as long as your opponents are okay with it, weighing/extensions/analytics are important.

Voting: Extensions, impact calc, and terminalized impacts are all very important. I would suggest starting to weigh in summary, and by FF, completely focusing on weighing instead of line by line. Tell me why you’ve won the round, where you’re winning, the mechanism by which you outweigh. Framework is also key and I’d suggest extending it throughout the round.

Extensions: if you make a new argument or bring up a dropped argument in second sum or FF, I will notice. If your opponent brought up a new arg, point that out if you still have a speech left. If it’s second FF and you don’t have a speech left, trust me, I will notice without you pointing it out.

RFDs: I'll always give everyone a good, long RFD on Tab. If there's time, I'll give some feedback in person. If for some reason you don't get a long RFD, its probably because Tabroom locked me out of the ballot.

Evidence: I do value evidence, but I equally value good analytics. If you make sensible argument based on common knowledge or logic, I see no need for a card. Do cite evidence, of course, but I don’t see much use in saying ‘our side has X many more cards than they do.’ I value quality of evidence a lot more than quantity.

Tech arguments: Feel free to go tech as long as it's against a qualified opponent. K and other tech arguments in PF are fine by me, but you can absolutely use theory against such an argument. If you make a good case for why I shouldn't allow it, I'll vote it down.

Framework/Niche frameworks: I don’t see a ton of value in running policy framework arguments in PF, like Baudrillard, extinction good, etc. You’re welcome to do so against a qualified opponent, but I don’t think these args are very valuable.

Theory: Know that I rarely buy paraphrasing theory, but if you make a good case I’ll consider it. Disclosure theory doesn’t matter to me in PF, especially on lower circuit tournaments.

Spreading: Please don't. It is important to keep PF accessible to the general public and those with speech/hearing disabilities. If your opponent is going too fast, feel free to say "slow." If you get slowed, don't worry about it, just drop your speed and continue with your speech.

Non-discrimination and abusive behavior: Offensive or discriminatory language, as well as personal attacks on opponents, constitute and immediate loss and zero speaks. Things like yelling, constant interrupting, dominating cross, and post-rounding will result in low speaks but will not result in am automatic loss unless the behavior is particularly egregious. If you're pushing it, I will warn you and give you a chance to fix the issue.

Evidence Violations: Per NSDA rules, verified instances of falsifying evidence are an immediate loss. In my book, an opponent’s accusation of falsifying evidence is not enough to prove it happened. If you believe someone has falsified evidence, you should stop the round and show me the issue.

Evidence: I do value evidence, but I equally value good analytics. If you make sensible argument based on common knowledge or logic, I see no need for a card. Do cite evidence, of course, but I don’t see much use in saying ‘our side has X many more cards than they do.’ I value quality of evidence a lot more than quantity.

Competed in, judged, and coached LD for 20 years.  As far as I'm concerned, "progressive" LD doesn't exist.  Analysis beats a card every time, the primary focus of the round should be on value, and policy shenanigans like Ks and CPs should be left in policy where they belong.  I'll happily flow words spoken at a normal pace, but if you're spreading, I can't follow it, it doesn't go on the flow, and I judge on the flow.  To win on the value, you must prove that your V/C uphold the resolution best, and all frameworks should bear that in mind.

If you have any questions or want further explanation of my paradigm please ask before the round!

My Background:

I tried most events while I was in high school. My main events were PF (First Speaker) and NX

Speech:

For all speech events, the most important thing to me is an easy-to-follow structure and a professional and confident demeanor. For specifics about certain events please ask me before the round.

Debate:

I do flow and will vote on the flow. I do not flow cross, if something is said in cross that you would like to count for the round say it in a speech. It's ok to cut your opponent off in cross IF they're just trying to kill time with their answer. I don't like aggressive debate, there is a difference between aggressive and passionate. I'm only sort of familiar with debate lingo (I was mostly a speech kid) so don't go too crazy. I like framework and definition debates as long as they're not the main focus of the round.

LD:

I don't like progressive LD so don't try and bring in Policy-esque arguments. While evidence is good to have, I'm going to prioritize moral and logical arguments. If you have to make the round about evidence then you're not doing LD right.

PF:

I'll probably vote on weighed impacts. While this is an evidence-based debate, I still think logical arguments are important and just as valid as evidence. However, if there is evidence that contradicts a logical argument then the evidence will trump it. Please cite your cards in your speech and organize your speech in contentions, it makes the round so much easier to follow. And don't just spout cards off at me, explain your evidence. If you're going to disagree on definitions or framework try and address it as early as possible. TAKE TURNS IN CROSS! I don't mind moral arguments, but connect it to logic/evidence.

Policy:

I know the general idea of policy but not that much about it. So keep things as simple as you can. Don't just spout off a bunch of evidence and expect me to understand.

Congress:

Quality>Quantity. One really good speech is going to beat 3 meh speeches. Don't just repeat arguments said in previous speeches. Also include rebuttals in speeches. Ask applicable and argumentative questions. Be more civil than a typical debate round, but I don't mind a little bit of argumentativeness.

World Schools:

I have experience competing in world schools (3rd speaker) so I understand a lot of the unique parts of this event. I will be flowing, but I might not vote on it. I want to see points of agreement and the round should be treated as a discussion rather than a debate. Each speaker should stick to what their role entails.

Background: I did debate in high school (mostly PF and Interps, but I tried almost all the events). I coached for a tiny bit, and now I'm here to judge!

**Feel free to ask for clarification about any of the following at the beginning of the round.**

DEBATES-

PF: Be civil to each other. You won't win me over by being rude or disrespectful to your opponent, especially during cross ex. Remember to hit voters hard in your final focus. Don't go too progressive. This is PF, not policy.

Policy: Go slow. I did policy for only a little while as a novice, so I can follow, but I'm not an expert. Overexplain and try not to be too progressive.

LD:LD is the only event I haven't done personally, so I don't really know my preferences yet.

Congress: I prefer concrete policy suggestions instead of abstract theories (how could we really do this?). I like if you can think through potential intended and unintended consequences of your policy decisions.

SPEAKING-

Interps: Don't touch or look at each other. Don't touch the floor. Try to bring a full range of emotions.

Impromptu: Avoid filler words. Feel free to be literal or creative with the use of your topic.

Oratory: Show confidence. Be polished, but try not to be robotic in your delivery. Have some ebb and flow to the energy of your delivery.

Extemp: Give some background in addition to answering your question. Answer it thoroughly and insightfully. Have confidence and avoid filler words.

deep sigh

I accidentally created a second tabroom account, please refer to the real one. (the only other Ethan Wall)

LD/PF Overview:

I am a debate coach and therefore comfortable with both progressive and traditional styles of debate. However, if you decide to go progressive, you must still clearly be topical and clearly have traditional elements like a value and a criterion in LD. In addition, you must still argue your opponents traditional case in a traditional way when you rebuttal.

I like to list things I do not like, so that you can avoid them:

· Telling a judge they can “drop the debate” or that “you can’t allow that argument.” I’ll be the judge, thank you. Please, do not ever tell a judge what to do or don’t do. You should explain your argument in such a way that I feel compelled to do so on my own volition.

· Language that is too aggressive, because assertion is okay but aggression is demeaning and degrades the integrity of debate. For example using phrases such as “are you aware that” for the beginning of a question suggests you think you research more than your opponent. In addition, when debaters say, “my opponent never did…” and then list something their opponent did do, it’s a loss of points for the speaker because I mark that as not paying attention to your opponent. Other phrases that suggest their arguments are “oblivious” or “asinine” or “ignorant” –Don’t suggest your opponent is lacking in any form.

· I dislike when the rebuttals are purely pre-loaded (some blocking is fine) but when your rebuttal is not specific to your opponent’s case and only defends yours against a general argument, I will not count that as a case defense.

· Battles over evidence are borderline pointless. Definitely point out evidence that is misrepresented, outdated, or otherwise taken out of context. Please do not make one piece of evidence last the entire debate. Mention it once, state you’d like to contest it, and let the judge (me) read the evidence at the end of the round. Most of the time it is not evidence that wins my vote, but the explanation and impact. To me, impact is most valuable. Do you know why any of this matters to anyone? Can you explain this in an attainable way for anyone, not just a debate judge? That’s how you prove to me that your argument is holistic and true.

LD/PF Paradigm:
I expect you to time one another, verbally so that I can note when we are over or under.
If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will consider this in my vote. Evidence should be organized and known well-enough to reference quickly.
If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, I will take this out in speaker points. I may also let it sway my vote, because ad hominem is a fallacy, and I like my debates to remain logical.

Please don't spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't tell if you're making a good point or not.

Please be kind. Avoid being unnecessarily nasty to your opponent.