I did speech and debate for three and a half years in high school in which I competed on the state level. I competed in policy and pofo so I can keep up with spreading but if you're in pofo I'd like to see you stick to the basics. I don't mind a topicality argument or a rule violation argument in pofo but that's it. If you dpread ,make sure it's clear so I and your opponent can understand. I like to see you flow through arguments and will be flowing myself.

I judge based of effort and attacking/defending your case. Keep the debate clean.

Hello! And good luck!

My experience: I have done Public Forum for some time now, as well as BQ debate alongside policy and more. I understand a good portion of the jargon. I also have been doing exempt for quite some time. Me and my partner were first alt. for public forum. I did qualify in exempt and my BQ debate, I tend to understand these events quite a bit!

General For Debates:

I very highly value evidence, do not be shocked if I ask to see a card after the round before making my choice. If you do not have evidence I am most likely not going to give you the ballot. I want to ensure an educational debate between both parties. The evidence is very important for me, I don't not listen to logical arguements that are made, however if it is backed with evidence I am much more likely to flow it vs a claim made without anything to back it up.

Diction is a good point if you are going a bit quick, I can do the speed just make sure that you are understood throughout the speech.

Another point I will be paying attention in the round is if you are going to be kind and treat your opposing team with respect. If you do not do this I will not give you the ballot at all, I don't mean getting into the debate but when someone or the team is being clearly disrespectful, etc. It will not be toletered in the slightest.

I also will judge the debate off of your framework you are providing for me, your framework is how the ballot is meant to be framed so I will follow what you give me. If one team comes up with one and it goes unchallenged that is how I am going to frame my ballot, so in terms of framework whatever flows through.

Impact Calc is also a good thing for me. If you do not tell me why your impact is the highest mangitude then I am not going to assume it is.

I have done numerous different debates and understand the terms and the flow of them, I HEAVILY am a flow judge. If something is not adressed throughout the debate, I will notice and flow these things through.

JV/Varsity:

Eclecticism: Debate the paradigm.

The best vision for debate will win on the paradigm. It is not a stock issue. I will treat it as RoJ/Framing. Whoever does the better debating on the winning paradigm wins the round.

I'm okay with whatever arguments as long as you justify their existence. (Action Ks are less likely to win my ballot tho but do whatever I ain't stopping you)

(If no paradigm is argued I'll just default to Flay refer below)

Novice:

Comms/Flay:

Framework: Worldview policymaker; CBA (Unless stated otherwise); Truth > Tech

I'll judge you based on a few set apriori criteria:

1. Impact Calc:

Theory Standards/Voters, Ks & PIKs, Disadvantages, Case Turns

2. Stock Issues:

Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, Advantages

(Bonus speaker points if you can theory impact stock issues.)

3. Comparative Advantage:

CPs & PICs, Alternatives, Internal/External Net Benefits, or Status Quo

I want both debtors to be kind and respectful to each other. I understand you're new to this and this can be kinda scary. I can help with whatever you need, I just want you to be comfortable and have fun.

"An essential element of persuasion lies in the ability to adjust communication to resonate with the audience."

I am an experienced judge and former coach of individual events, LD, CX, PF debate and congress. I prefer a rate of speaking that is conversational. I am typically persuaded by specific direct impacts and clear analysis.

Persuasion must include more than just series of data, but an analysis of presented data and clear connection/discussion of the impact of such data.

Quality is better than quantity- make your ideas concise and organized, and say the most important ideas before diving into more minute things if time allows. Given that, avoid speaking quickly in order to pack in as many words as you can- good ideas impress me more than amount of ideas. Be respectful no matter your opponent’s background,experience level, or argumentation style. I’d like voters- most of all have fun and be proud of the work you do!

Tabula rasa, but assume that I am an average citizen with average knowledge of the topic and jargon.

I'm looking for the team that is most successful in convincing me, with logic, humor, and good sense. N.E.

Have fun. Dont cheat. Dont make stuff up. Dont be rude. I will know if you do cheat or be rude, or if you dont have fun. And all of those make me slightly sad. So dont do that stuff and have fun.

I have more experience with speech than debate, but I still know what is going on. I prefer truth over tech. You can speak quickly, but if I can't keep up with you I will stop writing. I don't like it when teams are aggressive with each other and interrupt each other. Keeping decorum is big for me. Whether you think you are winning or are doing something well, I do not want to see it on your face. I appreciate clear framework.

Hello! First, a little on me. I did four years' worth of LD debate in high school I currently do collegiate debate. I also currently assistant coach. This being said, I tend to value traditional debate over progressive. However, this is your round, not mine, and I will flow whatever you choose to run. I'm fine with speed as long as it's accessible to everyone in the round- this includes the other judges and especially the other competitors, and it is used as a tool rather than a weapon. I'm generally tech over truth.

As for actual voting issues rather than my preferences about the round:

First and foremost, the debate is a space of inclusivity and kindness. I can and will vote on professionality. Discriminatory comments will not ever be accepted.

Secondly, I am a flow judge. Make sure you have time management so that you have plenty of time to respond to everything on the flow, including the framework. I am not a huge fan of kicking arguments and if I were you, I would stay away from this when you can. However, if you are going to kick an argument, be sure to explain to me why you are doing it. Otherwise, it's dropped on my ballot.

Finally, impact calculus is incredibly important. Tell me why your point matters more than your opponents.

Please feel free to ask me any questions as you have them.

Here's a couple of things you'll probably want to know about me before round begins:

As a judge, I have 3 years of debate background and 2 years of speech. LD is my absolute favorite, but I have also competed in PF before. I LOVE traditional LD debate, but can follow progressive debate if that's the way you and your opponent want to take the round. The best way to win my vote is impacts, but I will use comms as a tiebreaker. Have both comms and impacts and you'll most definitely win my ballot. Voters are huge for me, but if you try to claim something that is overtly false (ex. you say you brought up a card when you didn't or you say your opponent dropped something they did not) it will not go well for you. Have fun this round, the best way to do well is debate (or speech) is to find what makes it fun. Let me see who you are as a debater/speaker and you will do great :)

I shouldn't have to say this but be a good human.

Any questions about my paradigm? Don't be afraid to ask :)

I am a communications based judge. I value the tone and delivery of your information more than the information itself.

I will provide more in round this is crash course paradigm for something to go off of

Debate

I did LD and PF all 4 years and went to State Semis once and Quarters twice. I am more traditional and know the value and criterion very well. I also like evidence and explanations to back up arguments.

Went to Nationals and made Top 16 in Worldschools

I am a communications major so i look for great communication in the round

I vote off of 3 things

real world implacations and impacts for how this will affect the true world

communication and how well you provide the idea and how clear the idea is stated

Eye contact and emphasis. I like to see lots of communication between you and I so i can see you understand the material and your cases.

Evidence exchange is permitted and not timed under prep time

Depending on which evidence is exchanged, i may ask to see it but most likely not

I am a quality over quantity judge. I am much more impressed by a few well-made arguments than by throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. I understand that debaters have prepared their material ahead of time and are somewhat tied to the strategy that they have prepared; however, I will always value solid, well-reasoned argumentation, and good communication above some minor technicality. To me, this activity is about communicating your point of view effectively to an audience, and I am your audience. I have a fair bit of debate experience, and can usually keep up with whatever goes on, but that doesn't mean I want to. Speaking at an understandable pace, and using rhetorical techniques to drive home points will not be lost on me, and I prefer that to speed and shotgunning.

In LD I believe heavily in Value/Criterion or framework debate. Nit-picky contention argumentation is fine, but I want to see which side is true as a general rule, so dealing with your opponent's framework is very important. One reason here or there is not terribly meaningful unless they are in service of some grander principle.

For Policy, I think the first paragraph really covers most of it. I'd rather see relevant debate than kritiques, but I understand if that is all you brought. If you are going to sell me on a K, please be convincing, and commit to it. I don't like to see a K followed by, "But if you don't buy that here's a bunch of other stuff." I feel like a K should actually critique the resolution, and if you feel that way, then engaging with it immediately after feels cheap, and disingenuous.

For PF I don't have much of a particular paradigm beyond the one mentioned in the first paragraph. Forum was designed to be accessible, and while it isn't World Schools, I do think that a round of Forum should be understandable, at least mostly, to a layperson. They are short speeches and I get that there is a lot to get through, but making efforts to communicate clearly goes a long way in my book.

I am familiar with all the categories of debate and speech and would classify myself as a comms judge. I feel that excellent communication skills are critical, and in reality, the point in any style or form of debate/speech. What good is the intent of what you are trying to say if you cannot communicate your point to your audience effectively? So, making sure to be clear and articulate, effectively linking and impacting your arguments, and being respectful of your opponent(s) are all big for me. Speed is not usually an issue, as long as the technology cooperates and the clarity is there.

Other than that, I do really appreciate voters in final speeches. Tell me what you see the focal points for the round being, rather than letting me sort through and pull out whatever stood out or comes to mind. In good rounds the decisions are usually very close. Taking the time to remind me of your important arguments or the shortcomings of your opponent's responses helps ensure that I don't overlook anything in making my decision.

I was a former High School Policy debater. I competed for three years in Parliamentary debate for the University of Montana and have coached for 6 years now.

I am generally tabula rasa and will consider whatever arguments you make in the round. I don't think it's my job to tell you what positions to run or not to run. Your ability to decide on an effective strategy is part of debate. That said, everyone has their own preferences and biases, I have a few of my own.

Debate is a communication-based event. As such, effective communication and analysis are just as important as evidence in a round.

Mutual respect and decorum are paramount in my opinion. If you are a jerk or disrespectful to competitors you might still earn the ballot, but your speaking scores will reflect your tone and behavior. I will not hesitate to penalize someone for abusive rhetoric, slander, or any kind of hateful/discriminatory speech.

I like to see good clash of ideas and thoughtful analysis of arguments. Quality often wins over quantity with me. I have voted for teams that only won one argument on the flow, but they were able to explain why that argument won the round.

Unless specifically instructed otherwise I will revert to a stock issue/net benefits style framework. I have and will vote on things like inherency if the argument is well-made and impacted properly.

Vague or overly generic positions, and poorly supported causal link chains are not exceptionally convincing to me unless I'm given very good reasons to prefer them.

I am decent with speed and jargon, but if it impacts clarity and understanding it might impact what I get on the flow. My general rule is that if you are going too fast or are otherwise incomprehensible, I will put my pen down as a signal that I am not following you. If it's not on my flow, it probably won't be on my ballot either. Speed is not a substitute for substance. Your strategy should be something beyond talking faster than anyone else at the tournament and hoping they miss something.

Cross examination is binding and I will hold you to your word on how you choose to answer questions. Also, where I coach tag-team cx is against the rules. I won't penalize you if you do it, but each debater ought to be able to ask and answer questions without one partner taking over each time.

I don't consider new arguments in rebuttals. Responses are okay. Evidence to support existing positions is okay but any attempt to bring up brand new arguments or resurrect dropped ones won't make it onto my ballot.

Do your own extensions, cross-applying, impact calculus and voting issues. Please don't expect me to do a lot of extra work for you on the flow at the end of the round. You might not like how I choose to weigh things when left to my own devices. It's a lot more productive to simply say: what the argument is, how you have won it, and why that should decide the round.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

To all competitors -

In this community we are all peers; I sat where you sat and someday you will probably be sitting where I am. As such; you do not have the right to be disrespectful, impolite or rude in any way. Do not talk down to either myself or your opponent.

Novice Debate (PF/LD/Policy/WS/BQ). Please focus on a) having a productive and respectful debate, (talking down to either myself or the opponent is not a way to win), that expands the conversation surrounding the topic in a number of ways, b) making arguments that are grounded in solid logical reasoning and that advance the debate and c) using Cross examination to both clarify and advance the debate.

All open/JV/ or Varsity debate events.

1. For LD, I expect a strong VC pairing. This is the logical groundwork of your case and it needs to be extended and applied whenever possible.
2. Impacts are often times the deciding factor in round. I am a fan of impact calculus along the lines of Timeframe (when will the impact happen), Scope of Impact (How many people will be effected), Difficulty of recovery (How hard will it be get back to normal) Outright probability (how likely is this too happen), and intensity of impact, (are the impacted individuals slightly hurt or seriously injured). Please don't feel like you have to use any of these, this is just how I approach impacts.
3. The evidence you bring is only as good as the logic that surrounds it.

I appreciate clear arguments supported by reputable evidence. I do not fully flow, but I do take notes, so don't drop arguments without an explanation. If I feel it is a close debate, I will judge on who had better communication. Be nice to opponents, if you are rude or dominate cross even when your opponent is trying to ask questions I will not give you the win.

Clear organization, signposting, and impacts are key to winning debates that I judge. Speed is fine as long as those things are met. Don't just give me a lot of facts or a lot of reasoning. I like both: facts backed up with why it matters, but facts or examples to back up your points. I like direct clash, as long as appropriate, based upon the issues, and fair. Clear definitions and framework help as well. Rudeness is not tolerated & will impact your score, if not the outcome of the debate. Well-developed contentions & arguments, mindful of addressing all opponents points are key.

Good communication, with arguments based on evidence, logic, and persuasion. Reasonable arguments and impacts. Extreme harms such as mass extinction, nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, zombies, etc. require extreme real-world evidence. Not recommended.

Logical fallacies make for weak debate. I watch for logical fallacies, but also expect the opposing team to point out if their opponent is relying on a logical fallacy as part of their case.

I expect the following during debate rounds:

1. Debaters should provide their own timekeeping. Judges should be observers and not controlling the round.
2. Tag-teaming protects a weak debater by hiding in the shadow of a strong debater and consequently slows their growth. I do not allow tag-teaming in rounds.
3. Debate should be focus on discussion of the topic. No ad hominem attacks.

If you use speech drop or you have an email chain (adamlevanger@gmail.com), adamlevanger@gmail.com.

My background: I have been involved in debate for a couple of years but am not an experienced or technical judge. I am a lay judge with a growing understanding of things...I almost know enough to be dangerous but sincerely try to stay in my lane. Clear sign-posting please. I will flow. I appreciate moderate speed but can deal with speed if I have access to the evidence.

Aff: I think Policy Aff's make the most sense and have a harder time with K-Aff's, although I have voted for K's. I prefer a strong, easy to follow link chain. Please explain arguments and impacts clearly. I have a preference for realistic impacts, but if your links makes sense, go for it. Sign-post strongly for me please.

Neg:

Topicality/theory: Make sure you have a clear interpretation and violation and link strongly to why it's un-topical.

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

Counterplans: Prefer if mutually exclusive and can solve for Aff and Neg impacts.

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

Consider me a "Comms" judge. Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

Clear speech and quality arguments grounded in evidence is paramount.

I am a mom judge. Please assume nothing. If you point things out to me I will vote on those things. :)

2cd Year Debater

I mainly do Public Forum, but I have also gone to state for Congress

I am open to all kinds of arguments, but please refrain from attacking your opponent as a person i.e. calling them names or speaking down on their character

I do well with speed and can flow it well as long as you speak clearly, but please do not spread your case.

I will be flowing the round and I do take cross-examination into effect, so if a strong point is brought up in the cross I will be weighing it in the round. Even so, I would prefer if you bring up all your arguments in every speech, please do not mention something once and then never again, I would like to see your arguments built throughout the round.

I like Clash, but please do it respectfully

During cross-examination please don't be rude, being assertive is understandable but being rude and yelling over your opponents and or partner is not acceptable

I prefer that when you reference cards in arguments made, you summarize them rather than re-reading them several times. It is typically sufficient to read a card in its entirety only once, if that.

I am neutral on roadmaps, but when an attack is made, please show me where/signpost.

Please use your framework to weigh the round, it is there for that reason I don't really care if you do framework debate throughout the round or not, but at least bring it up in your final focus.

I am a flow and heavy impact judge. If your arguments don't have meaning, it doesn't have importance. I did speech and debate for 4 year, so speed isn't an issue. Just make sure that you are understandable. I don't like when people are rude to their fellow debaters, so please be respectful.

. I enjoy a more conversational pace over a fast and complex pace. I am big on evidence! Ensure you are able to back up what you present. I want to see respect from both sides. Try to respectfully interrupt your opponent during cross but don't purposefully cut them off.

Please explain or define any complex ideas and overall linkage. I want to see/hear the impacts, this tends to sway my vote more than the "argument".

This is your speech or debate round so I want to see you use your own strengths and build on those strengths throughout. Overall, these rounds should be fun and educational for both sides. Please follow the rules and guidelines of the speech or debate.

A little bit of background on myself….. I did speech and debate all four years of HS, I mainly did PF and Congress….but I understand LD and CX. I do well with flowing and speed as well with unique FW or V/C. As for what I want to see in the round:

• Road mapping, if you don't tell me where your arguments go and what you are attacking/defending, it will be dropped from the flow.
• Clear concise arguments
• I love clash….with that said if you are blatantly rude to your opponent you will receive an automatic loss. I understand debate can become aggressive but never create personal attacks against your opponent.
• Ultimately I will give the win to whoever’s impacts weigh the heaviest in the round.

Hello everybody!!

I did debate all 4 years back in high school. I mostly did policy, but I dabbled in every debate event. if you have any questions about my paradigm, go ahead and ask. Otherwise, have fun.

Policy: I tend to lean towards "Tabula Rasa", I believe it makes my job easier and allows the debaters to debate which values or issues take precedence. With this in mind, don't make the debate all about Framing. At some point, you have to find common ground or move on. I'm good with both traditional and progressive. Speed is fine but I'm personally depth over breath (Don't spread just to spread, especially if you are bad), Lastly, voters, as a Tabula rasa judge I love voters but don't just tell me what you won, but why you won it and why it matters to me or this debate (Weigh stuff).

LD/BQ I tend to be kind of a mom judge. Most of the time the debate revolves around values and criteria, and both often need explaining. Even when they are explained, debaters still have to prove why it is preferable, and how they uphold it, thus pretend I'm a mom (But with experience). I'm good with speed, just make the case assessable or slow down on tags, otherwise, you run the risk of me not flowing something. Ks are fine, but only run it if it is good and applicable.

Public Forum: I tend to lean towards "Tabula Rasa", I believe it makes my job easier and allows the debaters to debate which values or issues take precedence. I'm good with speed, as long as you make the case assessable or slow down on the tags, or else you run the risk of me not flowing something. I'm fine if you want to be progressive but don't force it, PF is a debate event that emphasizes its ability for anyone to listen in. Cross can get kind of messy so be nice and polite, I like clash but don't scream over each other.

Congress: I tend to judge based on the material and importance of the speech. a good speaker who brings multiple points will be ranked higher than a speaker who stands up to prove everyone is wrong. Congress is gathered to make a decision not to argue. with that in mind, a speaker who condenses the debate by elaborating and connecting other speeches through a different perspective is also well-liked (Hopefully you see the difference). otherwise, be kind and polite.

I debated in High school for three years with an emphasis on Policy and Humorus Interpretation.

For policy: I look for good convincing arguments and value logic when explaining anything. I go based on flow and if I find that your argument, statement or reasoning does not make sense or I cannot tell how you got from one idea to the next, I will mark down. Clash is good, don't take it too far. I understand that having an edge in competition can be good but also recognize that you need to be kind, considerate and respectful to other competitors.

For other types of debate, treat me as though I were a mom judge. If I look confused, I probably am.

For speech: Make me feel something.

Good Luck.

I am a Varsity Debater on the Pocatello High School Debate team. I have done all debate events minus big questions and lincoln douglas. I love learning, and am excited to judge the person reading, because there is a very high chance you will never read this again. Something to keep in mind during the debate: If you explain what you are arguing, and have good background for your information, and clearly communicate your points to me, you will have my vote. If not, that's fine. However, this will cause the vote to fall to something other than clear point communication, and argumentation. Within this, I am a stock issues judge, so be sure to address the issues. Also, If you are able to fight your opponents arguments to the best ability possible, I'm more likely to listen. Another point I will vote on, is if I am able to follow the arguments from a Varsity standpoint. If I see something that ought to be flowed, I will flow it. These being, Tagline, author, Claim, data, warrant, impact. Other than that, be professional, be kind, and have fun.

I debated all four years in high school, and my husband is a coach. I did LD, PF, Worlds, info, impromptu, and duo (among others). I can talk the talk, so don't worry about jargon. I like engaging speeches. I'm more concerned with persuasion than winning on the flow, but if you drop the best arguments, it's going to count against you. In LD, I vote a lot on the value and value criterion debate. Make sure you have them :) Please, I beg of you, time yourselves. I trust you and I'm so bad at timing. Also, feel free to ask questions in the round if you need clarification. I promise I'm not that scary.

Hi, my name is Addilyn! I'm currently a policy debater and I love policy debate! If you have any questions about the round or your ballot feel free to email me at addilynreinhold08@gmail.com

As I already said I love policy. Spreading is fine as long as your opponents agree and I can still understand what you are saying. Have good clarity and explain your arguments well, tell me why I should believe you. I will be flowing the round so try to follow the flow, provide roadmaps and signposts as you go! I'm all good with tag-teaming as long as your opponents agree and you're not carrying your partner too much.

Off Case

Topicality: Topicality is so much fun when done well! It's best when the violations are specific to the aff! Make sure that you understand the topicality being run so the best debate can be had! Your interpretations and counter-interpretations should be topic-specific rather than generic!

DAs: I LOVE DAs! When running DAs try to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impacts. I love impact-calc debate!!! Give reasons, and explain to me why this is a disadvantage that should be weighed in the real world about the aff case.

CPs: I also LOVE CPs. Case-specific counterplans are better than generics. Again, give me reason, explain to me why this plan is better than the aff plan, and why we cannot just perm do both.

Ks:I'm okay with K debate as long as you understand how to run and explain it well. Don't do something that you and your partner along with your opponents clearly don't understand. But K debates can be super fun when executed well.

Theory:Theory can be really fun when run well and provide a lot of snazz into the debate round. I recommend only running it when its something specific to your opponent's case or style of debate and not just because theory is fun:)

Anywho, have fun debating! Email me with any questions and ask any clarifying questions about my paradigm before the round!

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years; I also have experience with Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate.

I'm primarily an Impacts judge. Make sure your impact calculus is clear, logical, and pragmatic. That being said, if you aren't keeping track of the flow, your impacts won't stand. Good voters at the end also go a long way to solidify your case.

I'm fine with speed, but I would prefer if you demonstrate your skill as a debater, not just as a fast talker. I also prefer traditional over progressive debate.

*Note for LD: I love the Value/Criterion clash. Showing me why the value matters and why your case will help achieve the winning value will help you to solidify your impacts.

I am a Communication/Clash and argumentation hybrid. I am looking for you to support your argument and you articulate your points clearly. But don't miss a point your competitor uses. It may weigh more than the argument you are making.

Debate: When I debated in high school I mainly did pf. With that in mind if you are in policy or ld I may need some hand holding it’s your job to make the debate clear for me. I am fine with any argument you throw at me even if it is stupid as long as you’re able to prove it. I do value weighing, evidence, and links more than anything but if you don’t do that you can still win you just have to be better. Framework is also important.

Speech and Congress: I value organization, passion, flow, and uniqueness most. I do find that speech events do tend to be heavily biased based on content matter so I will try my best to judge objectively.

There are two main things that I do not want to see in a debate round. The first is speaking too fast - I am pretty confident in my ability to flow and if I cannot follow you, I cannot vote for you. This defeats the point of having a round and is unfair to your opponent because they cannot respond. Second, please maintain professional decorum and be respectful to your opponent. Even if you win on argumentation, I will not vote for you if you are disrespectful or unprofessional. Hateful or discriminative arguments will not be tolerated.

LD: The V/C clash should be a central part of the round. I want to see solid reasoning for why you chose your V/C, why your value is achieved through your criterion, and how your contentions tie into your V/C. Additionally, prove to me why I should prefer your value criterion and how we can only achieve your value on your side. Argumentation should be supported by examples and evidence, and those examples and evidence should be explained or justified in some way - don't just read a card and not say why it is important.

PF: If you are going to use a framework make sure to tie it into your contentions and to arguments against your opponent's case. I do not want to see you simply state a framework and then not bring it up again. Argumentation should be supported by examples and evidence, and those examples and evidence should be explained or justified in some way - don't just read a card and not say why it is important.

I am an experienced LD debater and judge. I'm also most of the way through my philosophy and economics majors, so odds are I will understand the majority of arguments you are trying to run. I dislike progressive debate (mostly its speed and exclusionary language), largely for its impacts on debate and its accessibility, and will almost always prefer traditional debate on the ballot (especially in LD). I encourage you to ask for my paradigm in round if you have more questions or need clarifications.

General Debate:

I am an experienced debater who specialized in LD, but I have judged long enough that I can follow other events just fine. There are 3 main things I look at in a debate round.

The first of these is accessibility. Just because you have a well written case and can speed read it does not mean you are a good debater. The mark of a good debater is smooth communications, which means speaking clearly, and often not using speed. I can usually follow speed plenty well, but if it is used like a weapon by preventing your opponent from catching all of your case, you will be penalized for it. If both opponents agree that speed is fine beforehand, then go for it. Also, if you have any accessibility needs (eg. difficulty hearing, etc), feel free to let me know before the round so we can make the round as accessible as possible. Another important aspect of accessibility is abuse. If your arguments are abusive, you will be penalized, regardless of whether your opponent points it out. Run strong arguments, not abusive ones. Still feel free to point out abusive arguments if your opponent makes any, though, to make sure I catch them.

The second thing I look for is clash. Regardless of how well either side debates, if there is no clash, it's difficult to determine which debater won the arguments. Attack each other's cases, and try to avoid dropping points unless it is strategic to do so (don't do this unless you know how to strategically drop points though). Although I'm looking for clash, I'm also looking for civility. Don't be rude to your opponent, it's unnecessary and unprofessional.

Thirdly, I vote off of framework and flow. Provide a solid framework, and tie your arguments to that framework throughout the entirety of the debate. Your framework exists for the purpose of telling me how to vote. If you don't carry your framework throughout the round, you aren't really supporting the issues you initially told me I should vote on. Additionally, follow the flow in your speeches. This ensures I know what you are attacking or rebuilding when you speak, and better organization usually equals a better speech. Provide voters and remind me why you deserve to win.

LD Specific:

Personally, I prefer more of a traditional style LD round. I'm a huge sucker for value and criterion, so don't neglect them as they are fundamental to the debate style. Don't run a value for your criterion, or a criterion for your value. As I mentioned above in the framework section, tie your framework (In LD this is your value and criterion) to the rest of your case to support why you should win the round. A well-thought out and developed value and criterion do wonders for improving your case. If you prefer a more progressive style, I can follow along if you must. Additionally, LD already allows for the use of philosophy, so most Kritiks do not need to be called a Kritik in LD. If you want to run philosophy, you can just do that without calling it a K. If it is something external to the round that you are critiquing, then a K may be appropriate if you really desire so.

I can explain in person a lot better than typed up, so ask in round.

Hello, my name is Paxton (He/ Him) and I love debate! If you are disclosing I would prefer you use file share or speech drop. Depending on the event you are in you can jump around my paradigm.

Circuit Debate (This section is up to date for TOC 2024)

Substance im tech over truth. Theory im truth over tech.

BE NICE! One thing that i feel happens alot more in circuit debate than locals are people being rude or down right abusive to their opponents. Please be nice. Debate is a game at the end of the day, and aggression will not make you better at it. Have passion but not anger.

There are some things to keep in mind. 1) I come from a traditional background. I am ok with you going fast and running whatever you want, but i may evaluate the round slightly different than someone who comes from a prog background. I really want you to tell me why you win. I dont need super slow voters, but i want you to either weigh really well or tell me why an arg is a round winner. At the UK opener my number 1 comment was not getting enough round analysis on why the debater won the round. Flow is great, but i need a clear reason to vote if you want to better your chances.

Im ok with speed, that doesnt mean im not a mortal. If it is unclear or not well organized then i will not have a perfect flow. I can only evaluate the round based on what gets on my flow, so dont think "ok with speed" means lose organization and clarity.

ROTB or explicit k framing is a must. I will not do the work for you on this. Also im skeptical of alts, if they arent explained in the NR i wont just give them to you. I also dont like "reject the aff alts", more creative/ more specific is better.

I dont like PICs. They have to be really good for me to vote on them.

I typically dont like theory or t. If there is legit abuse then run it and i will evaluate it, but if its a time suck or a speech filler than dont run it please. Theory is a tool not a weapon, please treat it as such. I am usually more willing to listen to theory from the aff (condo or speed bad) than from the neg. It takes a lot for me to vote on T.

I like pre speech disclosure, but im not a fan of pre round disclosure in LD. I dont think the neg needs extra prep time in LD like they do in Policy. I wont vote on disclosure theory unless you dont get the doc before the speech at all, didnt ask for it, and your opponent is spreading. If it doesnt meet those three criteria i wont vote on it.

My History

I have done well in LD, BQ, Worlds, BP, Policy, and PF. I am very familiar in any event I am judging. Policy and LD were my main events in high school. I was a state finalist in policy and a state champ in LD. I also finished 3rd at NSDA nats in LD. I am now currently coaching high school debate.

Overall

I am a tabula rasa judge (in traditional rounds). I prefer a clean flow with solid evidence and warrant extensions. I will vote off the framework, so tell me what that is! If I get no framework I default to impact calc. I WILL LISTEN TO ANY ARG. If you are running something ultra complex then do the extra work so I can understand the advocacy, but theory and k’s are great. (If you run a theory or k please give me role of the ballot analysis and do the proper extensions.) I am good with speed.

1. Don’t yell at or attack your opponents for who they are, please be civil. There is no excuse. I do understand that debate can get intense, and that is ok.
2. Roadmap and SignPost
3. Have fun and try your hardest! If you have any questions ask me after the round.

LD

I love this event. Give me good impact calc through the criterion. Cover the flow. When making extensions I need the card name, the arg, and why you are extending it or why it matters, basic stuff (comment for locals).

PF

QOL is not a framework (comment for locals). If you are going to read a framework please make sure it is unique and not just weigh impacts. Read one if you are actually framing the round in a unique way. I love evidence and warrant extensions. Sometimes slimming the case and dropping points is ok if done strategically. I will vote off of impact calc.

Policy

You do you. I’ll vote on anything, just make sure to tell me why. I err aff on T. Only run it if there is a clear violation. If you run it, give me good analysis on the impact of the violation. Solvency is very important, aff please extend it, neg please attack it. I am cool with CP’s, k’s, and theory. All I ask is that you do the work to fully develop them if you are going to try and win on it. I want role of the ballot analysis if you run a k or theory.If you run a ton in the 1nc I will be happy and excited for the round. If you run 1 or 2 very deep complex advocacies I will also be pleased. I err prog in policy but I also think all policy can be good policy (comment for locals, "prog" in a local not national context).

try your best, be nice, and communicate clearly. i am happy to explain more about my paradigm if needed, just ask.

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

Hi, I am still learning the ropes, so with debate events specifically, I would appreciate it if you do not speak too fast. PLEASE do not spread! Also, please be very clear with taglining your contentions. I wish you all the best of luck, and have fun!

Lisa

I went to Nationals in LD this past year and would consider myself well-experienced enough to judge the round and give the winner the win, I've also experienced relative success in PF despite only doing it three times, I got gold twice, so the same there. Policy however I only did once, and went 0-4... so you might need to do some extra explaining in this one. One important thing to remember in all debate events is to speak clearly. Even if you want to run Prog (If you know what Prog is) at least make sure that the attacks you place through these cards address your opponent's point, and tell me how it addresses their point. I prefer Comms debate though. I feel like if you're able to disprove your opponent's point by simply explaining how it falls rather than reading what someone else said it proves more skill, but that won't have too much weight on how I vote. Cards backing statistics are really important, however. If you're going to give me a number you need a source with that number. Framework/Value Criterion is going to be super important for debate. Prove how you uphold your side Framework/Value Criterion, as it is literally how I am supposed to pick who wins the round. However, the most important to me, over that is impact calculus. If it's the framework, or in the V/C, then that works. But if neither team does, just still use some form of Impact Calc, Impacts are important, so why are yours worse? Lastly, don't drop arguments. A really bad attack that makes no sense will still go over with any judge better than not even addressing it. If you don't address it, then I'm voting on it if your opponent brings it up.

Hi! My name is Kit I'm familiar with Public Forum debate and a small amount in Lincoln Douglas debate! I have debated for about a year now and this is my first year as a varsity and second year in debate, I'm very familiar with PF so I will be able to give the best advice I can. For LD I've done this style once so I know somewhat of it but not a whole lot, ill still continue to give the best advice I can. :3

Paradigm:

Clash is something I like, fight for your side! don't let the other side take you down. speed I'm fine with any speed I debate myself so I know how to flow well but please do not spread your case please be clear, though it doesn't hurt to go slower if time allows. I am fine with aggressiveness but I do not allow ad hominems (personal attacks/ rudeness) and depending on the severity I might not vote for you. Ultimately what will get my vote is your quality of arguments and how you argue them. I would appreciate road maps for the ease of flow and I would like to see points brought up more than once.

Good luck everyone!!! And remember to be confident!!

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change. 

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument. 

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically. 

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit. 

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why). 

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate. 

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them. 

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

There are two things that tank the validity of a debate. The first is speaking too fast. I am confident in my ability to flow and flow quickly; however, if I am unable to keep up, you're speaking too fast. Speaking that quickly does nothing for a debate because if your opponent and judge can't follow what you're saying, how are they supposed to respond or determine the winner of the debate? The second thing is poor decorum. Whether you are winning handily, supposably losing, frustrated with an argument, or happy with a trap you've set up, I shouldn't be able to tell. Uphold a strong level of respect, stoicism, and concentration in and on the round. Win and lose with grace.

Other requirements in the round:

Whatever argument you make should be backed by evidence, regardless of the event. Bleeding heart claims with unsubstantiated evidence have no place in a debate round. Statements such as "I think..." don't stand in a debate.

I’ve only judged for novice debates, because I compete in varsity Lincoln Douglas debate. But I’ve also done a lot of different kinds of speech like ADS, informative, impromptu, extemp, radio, etc.

In Lincoln Douglas I’m looking for a good speaker whose case makes sense. The value and criterion are very important to me and they have to be well written. You need solid evidence for everything. Be kind to your opponent, you can be passionate about the debate but I’ve made friends with many of my opponents afterward, so just be nice. In cross-ex I am completely okay with you talking over your opponent to ask the next question if needed.

Hello,

My name is Brooklyn Willford (She/ Her).

I have been around debate for about two and a half years. I have been dating a high school debater and now coach since the end of his junior year. He won state in LD and got 3rd at nationals in LD, so I have picked up some knowledge, but I am not super familiar with judging.

I will be flowing the round and using it in determining my decision. I will vote off what you tell me to vote on. Please explain things to me if you expect me to give you credit for them. Be nice. Off-time roadmaps are allowed. 10-second grace period. I may look at your evidence if it becomes a big point of contention. My biggest sway in judging is impact calc and I expect a voters speech.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Joshua Williams (Varsity Debater)

I've done PF for 2 years and LD this year.

• Speaking louder than your opponent doesn't mean you are right
• Speak concisely and fluently
• I strongly value crossfire! Use it wisely!!
• Clash is what I'm looking for
• Your evidence should have reasoning

• Be Happy

I want clear arguments, don't avoid your opponents attacks on your case.

*Remember that silence is better than uh's or um's

Richard Wolff - Debate Paradigm

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas, Big Questions (6 years Judging Experience)

I consider myself a communication (comms) judge but I flow everything. If the flow is not backing you up you will not do well.

Well-developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak clearly with an emphasis on communication delivery! Speed is not beneficial to your cause if it is too fast to be understood. (Info dumps are not beneficial to your cause) Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

Please follow the state/national rules and guidelines for evidence. You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer that you write things down or pass the evidence to your partner on a device.

I put a lot of emphasis on a well-developed case. Use criteria and arguments to support a value position. Reference evidence/support throughout the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

Please use empirical and philosophical arguments that make sense! Please explain your views on critical arguments. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I enjoy hearing a well-structured plan and how it will solve the issue being debated.

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link it to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose my vote. Do not go off-topic.

The focus should be on winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a person’s style, flaws, or methods. Please respect your opponent and show professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave. I am less likely to vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

I have experience debating Lincoln-Douglas and two teenage daughters. I am conservative-leaning, but choose a winner based on sound arguments and delivery. Convince me why your side wins-- provide a cost/benefit analysis and prove to me why your side prevails. Logical, evidence-based arguments are the most important aspect of a debate round coupled with excellent delivery. Emotional arguments are a sign of lack of ability to construct a reasonable argument and are off-putting. I hate to say it and it might come as a surprise but I am not interested in how you feel.

Things to consider...

Play the offense and convince me why you should win the round.

I do not flow or value ad hominem attacks.

Clash is acceptable, but keep it civil.

Debate the topic, not the person.

Speed talking is fine as long as your points are very clear and intelligible.

Loudness does not necessarily mean you are winning.

Voters are always a nice touch to sum it all up from your perspective.

Best of Luck and do your best!!

Hi, my name is Camie. My pronouns are she/her. I've done debate since I was in middle school up till high school, having experience in events such as oratory, extemp, and PF. I did PF for all four years of high school, competing in Nat Quals my junior year and winning 3rd in state my senior year. I'm currently a sophomore that goes to UC Berkeley studying Cognitive Science and Data Science.

PF: I'd prefer having less super complex arguments, but if you're willing to do the legwork required, I have no issue with that. I'm fine with spreading but make it clear. I like clash, clear arguments, and a good round. When your opponent makes an attack, I'd like to see your counterargument; not just some block you're reading off of. If there are any hints of disrespect, you are dropped. If you blatantly lie in round, it will be counted in your final ballot. I'll be flowing off of my laptop so disregard me typing. I will also take into consideration your final focuses. I want clear voters on why I should vote for you.

Extemp: Once again, clear and concise arguments are key. And steady resources. If you give your speech confidently, I'll probably vote off of that. I hope your arguments will make sense too.

Hello fellow debaters,
I am Daniel, the most based judge you will ever have :)

{Yes, I am the guy wearing a Perry the Platypus onesie}

Credibility: I have been debating for 2 year in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas and went 6-0 in districts and won a tournament at vbi at UCLA, so I know pretty much what I'm doing. (You can use pretty much any appropriate argument and I'll understand)

You should send speech docs to your opponent if they want it. Put me on the chain too: daniel07zhang@gmail.com

LD

Before the round

1. Come to round on time and be prepared.

During the round

1. Don't be cringe

2. Be clear and signpost.

3. WEIGH your arguments please and earlier too.

PF:

Everything from the LD section also applies.

Again please send me your cases and at the very, very least, you must send the evidence you read.

All that aside, also don't forget to have fun!