EMAIL: pattridg@asu.edu

Debate paradigm will be contextual to each form of debate. For positionality, I am a college speech coach (though I competed in high school debate and have judged debate at all levels of competition - it's just not my main thing), and I am a trans woman. If either of these things will bother you, strike me.

GENERAL: you may ask for any accommodations you like. Debate has historically upheld white supremacy, and making sure that rounds do not do that now requires active effort. Do not misgender me please, as me crying will probably not improve the round (unless it's a really good cry). The first time it happens, I won't drop you, but I will remind you. If you continue to misgender me, it will impact your ballot.

LD/Parli: spread is fine, love Ks, cool with Theory but actually tell me if you want me to vote on it. See below for "clear". I highly recommend explicitly stating how arguments link back to framework.

Policy: do whatever you want, but I reserve the right to say "clear" if I'm having trouble following, and will extend that right to both teams as well.

IPDA: fine with everything, but make sure your opponent is too. This is the kind of question to ask before prep starts, not after.

PF: don't flow through ink. Don't strawman your opponent's evidence or flow coverage (saying "they didn't address Contention 2 subpoint A" when they in fact did. You can tell me why they didn't address it in ways that mattered, and go in depth here, but don't conflate that with "they didn't address it"). The first time it happens, I will give you some leeway. The second time it happens, it will impact your speaker points. The third time it happens, you will be dropped. Clarity and clear links are valued.

In Congressional Debate, I believe in clear, concise analysis. I expect clash, cited evidence, and rebuttal. I also appreciate students who immerse themselves in the debate and act as if their votes have an importance to their constituents back home. I understand that the end result is artificial, but for the moments in which you are in session, act like it matters.

I also expect that you will treat your colleagues with respect and avoid the parliamentary games which serve to prevent them from speaking. I've been around too long and can see through such tactics.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

By event type, you can see my general thought process below:

Congress:

I value the PO (having been one myself in the past) and consistently rank excellence in PO over excellent in round speakers, as the PO is "on" for an entire session, rather than just for a few minutes over a couple of hours. If you are seasoned in congress, I would expect that you run for PO, it is your way to give back to the event, while still giving you plenty of opportunity to win your chamber. For PO's: please be loud enough to be heard in the back of the room (where I will generally be), and DO NOT POINT your gavel at the participants - for me, it is a cardinal sin of a PO (you WILL be deducted for it!)

After the first speech on each side, remember your burden - there should be a recognition that you will need to further your side of the argument, and also defend against the other side to be truly effective. There is an extemporaneous element to speeches that should be evident, rather than reading only a canned speech. I do expect a full citation on all sources. During cross, I do look for a speaker to be able to defend their aff/neg contentions - the inability to do so will hurt you in scoring of the session (I use cross as my tiebreaker with speakers - so I am listening!). At the end of the day, congress is meant to be conversational and persuasive, articulating the possibility of change - it is not necessarily meant to change the world in 90 minutes. Have some fun with this - you did a large amount of preparation for this event (up to 10 billis, aff/neg for all and cards for quick prep). The hard part is done in advance - the speeches are the end result. BONUS POINTS for you if you can make the room laugh during the round.

Impromptu

I am super open to the creative side of this event. It is the only event that does not allow for a preplanned presentation, has almost no prep, yet expects you to still make sense of a completely random topic, meme, or idea. Those that tend to do well with me will not only use their allotted time (within margin is ok), but tells me a story about their topic that is easy to follow, has structure, and gives me something to think about. Originality in this event is rewarded, and bonus points for you if you have jokes during your delivery (it is super hard to do, and shows you to be comfortable in one of the most uncomfortable environments on the circuit).

Extemp

This is, and always has been, my favorite event! I value the analysis and warranting of a topic over a volume of evidence your speech. Draw me the map of the topic, why you are choosing your direction and how you are supporting your ideas. I will find it difficult to rank you highly if all that you do is throw out card after card throughout the presentation. Remember, there is a presentation element to this event - there should not be a need for more than 4 or 5 sources, as they are meant to be supportive of your spin on the topic, not the crux of the argument. Presentation quality is a HUGE factor - and is most likely my tiebreaker in many rounds. Lay out the ideas in order and summarize at the end. Leave me something to remember you by - what sets you apart in round, how do I justify giving you the 1?

LD

DO NOT SPREAD in this event. I have expectations that LD is a more traditional debate format, where the conversational nature of the event is to persuade me to believe in your conclusions, so I expect a traditional case. There should not be progressives, kritiks or counterplans in an LD round - if you want to play that way - you should look at competing in policy, not LD. I rely on framework to evaluate the round and value warranting and analysis over volumes of evidence. The articulation of the value definition, your analytical ability and weight of your argument in the framework of the case are primary ballot drivers.

As a judge, I rely on the debaters to handle and treat their evidence properly. Do not cut off a card to make it fit your point. If the whole card actually means something else, find a proper card to support your contention. If there are questions about use of evidence and I ask for your card, you should be very concerned. I assume all debaters will make ethical use of evidence. That said, I will follow tournament procedures for any and all violations and will immediately drop a competitor who misuses evidence. This format is meant to be a conversational exchange of the ideas at hand, not an exercise in debate theory or technical games. If you wish to explore those options in round, it is highly unlikely that you will earn my ballot.

Policy

Spreading: I think this is an educational activity; therefore, I do not like any sneaky tactics that give you an unfair advantage. For this reason, I am not a huge proponent of the spread format. Overall, spread rounds make debate inaccessible for the general public, diminishes the impact of your arguments, and forces your opponent to also spread so they can respond to all of your points. Generally I will be very annoyed and hate judging this type of round, and though I CAN flow it all, I am generally not going to reward you for trying to spread your opponent out of the round. (Exception - National Invitational Tournaments - spread debate is the expectation at the highest level of competition. You should be able to spread properly if you are entering a high end invitational - this is the time when you should truly let it all go!).

I WILL NOT BE ON AN EMAIL CHAIN! Policy debate is meant to be an oral argument about a proposed POLICY, so I should be able to hear and understand what you are saying. Run whatever you want. K's, CP's, DA's, conditionality are all fair game. If you choose to spread and you are inaudible, I won't get your insights on the ffow - which has dire consequences for your side of the case. There is plenty of time (8 minutes) in a constructive to put out a variety of supports to your case, DA's, CP's, K's and the like. If you choose to spread, tread carefully.

Evidence Violations: While I am not going to be on your email chain, If I catch you committing an evidence violation I will automatically drop you and cite that as the reason for the loss. Evidence violations are getting worse on the circuits and I believe it is no longer enough to just drop the argument. Make sure your card says what is says - if you cut it off, and I notice, and if the full card is not advancing the same argument as the partial you are using - that is an evidence violation. If I am asking to review a card (or cards) at the end of the round, that is a bad omen!

Cross examination/fire: I do flow this! While you may see me checking over my flow during this time - I am still paying attention. This portion of the round is meant to be a period for you to clarify ideas and defend your statements, not do another rebuttal. No tag teaming in cross! The reason I say this is that 1). It was never originally meant to be that way. 2) I want to see each individual's skill in questioning and defending, tag teaming allows you to hide a poor cross ex member, rather than them getting better at this function of the debate.

Signposts, Weighing, Solvency, Impacts, Extensions and 1R/2R: Please signpost! Telling me you are responding to the first contention isn't enough. Tell me "On C2, "specific warrant", we have "x number" of responses". If you are responding to a DISAD tell me if you are responding to uniqueness, external link, impact or internal link. Please be as organized and specific as possible - if I can't match it to my flow easily, it is a wasted idea or argument. If you are going to address an argument as a whole, tell me (us), and tell me why that should be enough. You still have to tell me that your opponents dropped something - I am not just going to automatically flow that through, that is your responsibility. Pull dropped items forward by telling me why they matter - You MUST extend in every speech. You need to analytically interact with your opponent's responses and tell me why I should buy your argument over your opponent. A note on impacts - while it may be fun to have everything end with nuclear war, that type of impact is not going to sway me. Be realistic, a harm that is viable and a likely outcome is much more impactful than counting up dead bodies in a worst case scenario.

BQ & PF:

Similar to LD philosophy above. No need to try and get too exotic or fast.

For all forms of debate, I am basically a flow judge. That being said if you spread too fast I will not be able to get parts of your case on to my flow. In the end, be logical, make good cases and be respectful.

I don't time off time road maps as long as they are quick and efficient.

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

Please do not spread, I will ask you to speak clearly a few times and then I will just stop my flow if I can't understand what you are saying.

Signpost clearly so I an follow your argument and if I need to be able to tell where you are in the flow when doing a rebuttal.

I did LD for 2 years and Policy for 2 in high school, I'm good with progressive debate (but please provide definitions for any less common terms you'll use frequently). I'm okay with fast speech, but please don't spread. Please signpost and extend your arguments, cards, etc by name so I can flow them more easily. I don't flow cross. It's up to you to time yourself, I'll only keep track of prep. My email is moralofthefable@gmail.com for the email chain. If you say "watermelon" in your speech I will give you 1 bonus speaker point, thank you for actually reading paradigms!

I weigh T > K > case. I think that extinction impacts are bad and ruining policy debate by overshadowing real, tangible impacts, so I probably won't vote on magnitude alone. I hate PICs, please don't run one, I won't vote on it. If you run a K, it has to link or I won't buy it. If your opponent says something dumb, call them out or I have to flow it. Tech > truth unless it is actively harmful/violent. Any bigoted arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism etc.) WILL get you dropped and reported to your coach.

Remember, the most important thing here is to have fun!! Make sure you're taking care of yourselves!

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me in round, if you see me wandering around, or over email! I'm always happy to yap about policy <3

Congress:

Absolutely no spreading.

Passion is a part of persuasion, how can I believe you if I don't buy you believe in your own argument

If there is a tie, I will use great questioning as a tiebreaker.

I automatically set Presiding Officer at 1st, you have to be that much better to surpass them if they do their job effectively and efficiently

Debate:

Most above applies as well, no spreading, passion, great questioning.

You cannot simply refer to a card, you must elaborate and connect the card to your/opponents arguments and must be clear in that connection.

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply put down my pen. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask. I find off-time roadmaps to be a waste of time, and while you are speaking I will always keep time and immediately drop my pen once your time is up.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not simply be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. In fairness, a Neg K can be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one. Regarding Theory, be very careful. I recognize there are things that either side can do which are abusive or frivolous even if the base argument is topical. If you can thread that particular needle when responding, more power to you.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Finally, tech is of course important in any debate round, but I also recognize that there are also some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). However, for any reasonable argument that isn't straight-up factually incorrect and flows through, I will absolutely find them credible regardless of any previous opinions I have on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

I am a speech and debate coach and an English teacher, who taught logic, technical writing, composition, and Literature in college for 11 years. I debated in high school. These are some of the things you should consider when debating:

1. Speak clearly, do not spread. I am mostly deaf and I rely on imperfect hearing devices and lip reading. If I can't hear your arguments you haven’t made your argument.

2. Have empirical evidence and use it concisely.

3. Consider your structure. Make the time for a well thought out planned case or response that makes sense logically.

4. Be mature and respectful at all times. Yes, be confident and assertive, but do not yell, bully, belittle, roll your eyes, use sarcasm etc. . ..

5. For speaker points make sure to have a polished presentation style with appropriate eye contact, volume, dynamics, dramatic pauses, rhetorical appeals, tone etc. . .

I value:

• A progressive debate. One where there are no two speech that are alike and build off one another rather than repeating the same points. Get creative!
• Clash. Address your fellow congress members and call out their points you have an issue with.
• Outline your speeches. Provide a road map tell the audience when you are stating new contentions, evidence, and impact.
• Engaging the audiences. Proper volume, eye contact, and body language. Moving to different stops for each contention.
• Being chill. Respect and help your fellow debaters. Have fun!

Updated for Scottsdale Prep

Welcome back and I am anticipating another engaging year of congressional debate. Arizona has a well earned reputation for excellence in congressional debate and I look forward to continuing that excellence this year.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't and ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make by top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.
2. First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.
3. Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.
4. End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you mee the burden.
5. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.

BONUS INFO

1. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos "the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
2. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

3. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

4. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal, I strongly urge all congressional debater to review these paradigms from former elite congressional debaters who are now elite judges of congressional debate.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

My name is Ashley Wilkens.

I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, and IE events for the past four years (~25 tournaments)

Congress

- I am most familiar with judging congress compared to other events.

• Open to any arguments made in round as long as they successfully impact the round (no-rehashing), and are presented well and relevant to the overall topic
• please be aware of your precedence/recency later in the session to create speeches that contribute well at the time they are given
• I like an organized chamber that flows well and works together, this is both on the chamber and the presiding officer to make sure docket order and AFF/NEG splits are figured out efficiently
• Very intolerant to disrespect in the chamber; including interrupting, disregarding time limits, disrespecting opponents (clash is great, but please still stay respectful to others arguments)
• Presiding Officer- I am familiar with parliamentary rules and will rank you according to those. Please keep an organized chamber and be proactive in making an enjoyable AND efficient chamber, and you will be ranked accordingly.

Debate

• You may spread your case if you desire, I look for enunciation and well thought-out presentations. I will only call "SPEED" once if I cannot follow your case, after that I will simply follow what I can. I cannot judge you if I am trying to decipher what you are saying or lose track of your case
• Keep things structured and ensure a clean flow.
• Flow your case for me, tell me your points. I do my flows on paper. I do as best as I can to blank slate myself, meaning I cannot finish your case for you if you don't hit all of your points and tell me what to consider and vote for in the round.

• Progressive: I will consider anything, I find it very enjoyable IF you can tie it into a clear cut point to support your case and adequately rebut your opponent. I am familiar with kritiks and progressive frameworks. Theory I am not familiar with, but if explained well and competitor is clear regarding how I need to incorporate it into my ballot I will hear it out.

Above all, have fun!! These are skills you will carry with you your entire life :-)

For Congressional debate,

I consider of the content of speech, the argument skills (synthesizing, refutation), and responding of questions) and the delivery skills to evaluate.

1. The content of speech

a. organized structure ? Introduction, body and conclusion.
b. Quality of content - how effectively developed the idea.
c. Supporting evidences: I prefer specific evidence with credible references. I’ll check they are logically linked together with the main topic.
d. Clarity of perspectives: clearly approaching without confusion of affirmative or negation.

2. The argument skills

a. Contribution of debate: How is the speaker actively involved in the round and leads the round?
b. The balance of synthesizing and refutation.
I don’t like the speaker simply repeat the previous argument without anything. I prefer to hear new argument with fresh new idea.
c. Q&A time: Are the questions answered adequately?

3. Delivery

a. Eye contact and reading: I prefer to have eye contact as much as possible during the speech. I don’t recommend reading without eye contact.
b. Vocal control - proper volume, pronunciation and speed. I also prefer dynamic vocal changes instead of monotonous speaking.
c. Physical poise: Is there a polished manner for the presentation? is the gesture proper when speaking? Is there any unnecessary movement or habit presented?

4. P.O.Evaluation

I consider of the quality of Parliamentary procedure (clear explanations of rules, smooth running the round with little to no error) and the ability of speaker recognition ( the consistent and fair distributions of speaking opportunity).

For Speech event,

I consider of the contents of story, the performance quality, the delivery skill and so on for judging.

1. the contents of story,

a. The selection of story - is it unique and distinct?

b. Thesis - is it clearly established?

c. The selection of references

- Is it well linked to the main topic?

- Is it effectively support the main topic?

d. The well developed structure

- Does the story flow well?

- Does the sequence of event make sense?

- Is the story line easy to follow?

2. The performance

a. Attitude- Is the presenter comfortably commanding in the space?

b. Delivery skill

* Vocal quality

- I prefer the clear diction with the normal pace.

Also like the dynamic vocal skill using the efficiency pausing and rhythmical vocal change.

* expression

- Is the expression and movement motivated in the story?

- Does facial and physical expression enhance the performance?

- Does the performer maintain and control the performance?

- Is it dynamically presented?

* fun

- Is it fun to watch? How much audience involved in?

* Is it easy to understand the presenter’s performance?

3. Prepared material

- Is the picture or photo easily recognized?

- Is it well linked to the story? How efficiently support the topic?

- How is the Material preparedness quality?

4. Conclusion

I also weigh the conclusion part because it is the most important part of the presentation. I prefer to tell me the exact summary what you present in the end.

Thank you.