I debated for all four years in high school. I did LD and PF for three years and then the policy for my senior year. I evaluate courtesy and ethics before I evaluate the flow. Please be respectful.

PLEASE USE SPEECH DROP TO SHARE EVIDENCE. If you don't know what this is ask me in round

LD:

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

I don't care if you run a K but you need to be able to explain it well because I don't have a ton of experience with K's but I am more than willing to learn with you if you can effectively debate the K.

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

I weigh theory above everything else, and topicality is a theory argument.

For the value criterion debate- this is framework and it tells me how to weigh the round. I will follow that framework when making my decision if an effective debate was made on it. However, the value criterion is not a reason to vote for you, it just tells me the lense to vote through.

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

PF:

Plans and counter plans are illegal in PF. I will drop you if you run one.

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

Cost benefit analysis is not a framework. If you read CBA as your framework in your case, you are better off skipping over that part.

Please please please collapse.

Please give me explicitly voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

Policy:

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

I don't care if you run a K but you need to be able to explain it well because I don't have a ton of experience with K's but I am more than willing to learn with you if you can effectively debate the K.

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

I weigh theory above everything else, and topicality is a theory argument.

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

______

Do what you do best and I will keep up

If you have any questions about my paradigm, the RFD, or debater/team-specific feedback feel free to email me at andrus.cadee@gmail.com

Please add me to the Speechdrop, email chain or flash. michaelqbahe@gmail.com

Background

I am currently a Senior in High School at Highland High School. I've debate 3 years in all events, LD, PF, Congress, World Schools, Big Questions, and my Main type of Debate is Policy. I am the 2024 State Policy Champion.

FOR ALL DEBATE TYPES

I am good with spreading just send me the doc before hand and slowdown just a tad bit on tag lines. Don't say things like "Off-Time Road Map" just give it. I'll give a 10 sec grace after that I'm going to cut you off. I would prefer that your last speeches were not voters just a line by line basis but make sure you tell me why you winning the contention, DA, CP, etc. and why it won you the debate whether it be off of impacts or FW. I default to condo good, no RVI's, tag-teaming and flex prep are ok other than those I am Tech>Truth. I am also evidence heavy and analytics are ok. I will be flowing so don't lie about if your opponents drop anything. In terms of communication skills, Speak clearly so It helps me cover the flow. I do speaker points based off of how well you debate. I am more likely to vote for your impact if you collapse on it and go hard on it.

LD

I really enjoy LD debate and am excited to judge it.

How to win: Much like Jett Smith I will look at both of the Framework's that both sides have given me. Then at the endo of the debate I am going to pick one of those framework's Based off of who won on the framework debate. Then I will look at the Impact's each side won on the flow and weigh them under the framework that was chosen.

PF

How to win: Same as LD. I will choose the framework at the end of the round depending on who did the better debating on the framework then weigh the impacts that each side won and base my decision off of that.

Policy

I WILL VOTE OFF OF HIDDEN ASPEC IF I HEAR IT

How to win the round: I am a stock issue judge but not the kind that says if you the aff loses one stock that means they automatically lose the round, no. If only disads are presented in the round then if aff loses one but are able to sufficiently prove to me that their advantages O/W the disad then I'll likely still vote aff, neg that means you just prove the impact of the disad O/W the plan. If a CP is presented then my view changes, I normally vote neg once the round starts unless the aff proves to me that the plan solves and O/W the Neg, but with a CP it switches. I vote aff unless the neg proves to me the CP solves better than the aff. If the CP is kickes then it doesn't matter to me anymore. Make sure the CP has a Net Benefit. If neg wins topicality then it doesn't matter what Aff wins. Kritik depends on the framework presented under it, if aff wins policymaking FW then I vote aff because the K doesn't matter anymore and if Ethical judge wins then I'll vote neg if they prove to me the assumptions of the aff are bad. I'm ok with anything, DA, CP, K, T,etc.

Please Note: ADD me to the Email Chain [dbraswell@chicagodebates.org]

My Paradigm is as follows,

I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP/Theory arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I am a firm believer of strategy as well, so go for whatever strategy you feel works best for you IN the debate round. I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time. I have judged the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.

Respectfully,

Derrick Braswell

This paradigm will generally apply to Policy, LD, and PF. (and even BQ)

I will judge each round based on the arguments presented in that round. I am looking for good argumentation on each side. I want to see well constructed arguments that are relevant to the Resolution. If neither side brings up Value, Criterion, one of your contentions, etc don’t tell me it is a voter. Voters will be issues we have discussed within the debate. Arguments made will hold the most weight. If it isn’t a contested point in the debate, it likely won’t be a deciding issue. However, If no on case attacks were made, that lack of attacks could be a voter.

I want to see clash, but I expect you to remain civil and kind. Things I consider to be unsportsmanlike are eye-rolling, raising voices, being rude or intentionally obtuse. For example: Don’t make eye contact with the judge and roll your eyes when your opponent is speaking. Don’t scoff when your opponent says something you disagree with, don’t pump fists when your opponent says something that you can turn or that sets you up with a perfect argument. I should never feel like anyone, including myself, is being yelled at. If you are being asked a question that is damaging to your case- don’t ask for it to be rephrased 10 times- that just wastes time and alerts me that it damages your case. It draws more attention than quickly answering and moving to the next question. My recommendation: Find a way to answer it that doesn’t blow your case or find a way to answer it and move on.

I keep a detailed flow and will use that when determining the winner of the round. Signposting is preferred to Roadmap. I don't mind both, but sign posting is more important. Signposting each argument will be crucial to making sure your arguments end up where they belong, if you leave me guessing where the argument goes, it may not end up where you intend it. For example: "Moving on to Inherency/ Contention 1/Value, etc." That tells me where on the flow your evidence goes. If you tell me after then it is too late for me to flow it.

When refuting an attack made against your case, don’t just tell me to extend the argument from your case as your refutation. The point is under attack, so even if you are using the same argument/evidence/idea there is necessary argumentation needed from you to tell me WHY your evidence/idea/argument is the superior idea for that point. Telling me to extend something without doing the damage control after an attack is not repairing the damage done to your case. Even if you think the opponent’s argument is weak- repair and defend your position.

Logical reasoning has a strong place in debate, and I like to see your ideas logically presented, with supporting evidence. Make connections and well constructed arguments.

Crossfire and cross examination are integral parts of debate and I always like a well controlled cross period. I don’t typically flow cross, but I will be paying attention. If you make a strong point in cross, or set up a good argument, bring it up in your next speech or it won’t be a deciding factor.

Theory/Kritiks: I am a stock issues/resolution based judge. I want to see the resolution debated, running theory or kritiks is at your own risk. They will be received by me as you not having any relevant, on case arguments. I do not like them so I don’t recommend it. I can usually spot a disguised theory or kritik argument, so like I said- it’s a big risk.

Speaking quickly is ok, spreading is not. If you are speaking quickly, clear signposting and clear tag lines are essential. If you choose to speak quickly, I expect that you are able to clearly articulate each word-enunciate. If your words are a jumbled mess or become mispronounced due to speed, you shouldn't be speaking that quickly.

Regarding Tag-teaming during cross examination in policy and crossfire in PF (excluding grand crossfire)- Each person should be able to answer their own questions. Answering for your partner demonstrates a lack of faith in their ability/knowledge and doesn't present as a strong team of equals.

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD: Value/Criterion

• This is framework. It decides how I vote and what impacts I vote on, but it is not in and of itself a reason to vote for you. So just know, if you stand up in your last speech and tell me your first voter is the v/c debate, I am inwardly sighing.
• There are a million different arguments you can read for framework, and the majority are strong enough to vote through. However, know that I take framework seriously. V/C arguments like Morality are empty and mean nothing; whose morals? what moral guidelines? its like standing up and saying "you should vote for the gooder team." (the typo is intentional)

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you.

I don't care if you run a K but you need to be able to explain it well because I don't have a ton of experience with K's but I am more than willing to learn with you if you can effectively debate the K.

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

I weigh theory above everything else, and topicality is a theory argument.

For the value criterion debate- this is framework and it tells me how to weigh the round. I will follow that framework when making my decision if an effective debate was made on it. However, the value criterion is not a reason to vote for you, it just tells me the lense to vote through.

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

CX:

I am fine with speed but only if both a parties are fine with it, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably won't win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem. If you use speed drop for evidence sharing please share the code.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

PF: Framework

• For the love of all things good in this world, please stop reading Cost/benefit analysis in any and all debate events. PF topics are almost always written to have an inherently CBA structured debate, so reading it in case is a WASTE OF YOUR TIME AND MINE. The only time you should read CBA is if your opponent reads some wacky framing and in the rebuttal you're like "Nah, cba lol" in which case you're fine. Im exaggerating, but at the same time I'm really not.
• Seething pretense out of the way... CBA is the assumption, but I 100% believe that you can read alternative framework in PF. When you can't read a plan, F/W can help you narrow the debate in a nonabrasive way, and can lead to some very powerful debates. That being said, the same standards apply from LD (and policy...)

Plans and counter plans are illegal in PF. I will drop you if you run one.

I don't care how fast you go, I will say clear if I can't understand you. Remember this is mean to be a public speaking be clear and concise.

Please please please collapse.

Please give me explicitly voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

Policy:

Spreading is fine If clear

Poor defences is better then no defences

Explain why the harms are important to the plan itself

Perm do both needs more then just the statement, tell me why it applies.

Howdy, my name is Bryan Crawford (he/him/his),

I am a debater with experience in Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate, as well as experience judging Novice Public Forum and Novice Lincoln Douglas.

If you want to add me to an email chain, my email is bryancrawford007@gmail.com, however, other online evidence-sharing methods would be more convenient.

In all forms of debate, I value a fair and respectful debate, no matter what. Please maintain respect for yourself, your opponent, me, and the building you are in.

My paradigms for each are as follows:

Policy:

-Stock: I will not vote for a side based purely on one or two dropped points in the flow, however, I will flow them through and they will influence my decision based on the arguments that were dropped being assumed true. If there was at least evidence or good analytics for the dropped point, it would flow through.

-Speaking: I am okay with faster reading if your opponents are okay with it. I do, however, struggle to hear words that are not pronounced clearly, so please enunciate your words, especially key points.

-Evidence: I value evidence, but I do not vote solely on who has the better evidence. Evidence is supposed to provide rigor to your general arguments, but it should be provided with analytics and explained further, especially in the rebuttal speeches.

-On Case: In terms of case arguments, I value impacts and cost-benefit analysis heavily. As the AFF or NEG, you should prove that the case either does or does not outvalue the cost/harms that will come with it. This includes coherent inherency and solvency arguments that directly prove or disprove the case's necessity or its ability to solve. Harms/advantages help to tell me why I should value the plan more or less, depending on each side's arguments.

-Off Case:

--In terms of topicality, I often find it relatively uncompelling unless there is an actual impact. A topicality should have coherent fairness and education arguments that connect directly to what the affirmative is doing. Too often, fairness and education boil down to the same sentences about the blowing up of the topic area or the importance of debate to education, without explaining why the case directly does that. Do that, and I will be more likely to vote for a topicality.

--Disadvantages are critical to off-case arguments. I want to know why passing the plan is harmful, and why it matters. I value solid links and meaningful, realistic impacts. I want to know if these harms and impacts are true or impactful, because if the plan's benefits still outweigh the harms, then the plan is better in a cost-benefit analysis.

--Counterplans should be used to provide a better alternative to the affirmative. They need to be exclusive and show that they have a better CBA. Otherwise, I will not vote for them. However, if they are strong and exclusive, then the counterplan would be an extremely valuable argument because the negation would be providing a better world.

Tl;dr: I value cost-benefit analysis and whichever side provides the better outlook for the world is the one that will likely win. I also value strong solvency arguments and strong disadvantages and counterplans.

LD:

• Lincoln Douglas is a value-based debate, and in a Lincoln Douglas, I value whichever side can show their value and criterion is superior when looking at the topic and the world. Arguments should be connected to your values and towards a general outlook of the world. Whichever side can provide a better value and better arguments, analytics, and evidence for their position is more likely to win.

PF:

- To me, Public Forum is about making a strong analysis using strong evidence for your position. I value strong, confident speaking and coherent arguments. For Public Forum, you should show why your side provides a better cost-benefit analysis or provides a better world. Moral arguments are great but should provide impacts for what happens if morality is or is not achieved.

I did speech and debate all four years of High School and I'm am happy I'll be able to hear from you/

I look for logical arguments. I care more for points that preferably have good evidence rather than making an argument just to look good to the judge or to have more points than your opponent on the flow. In other words, I like quality over quantity.

Lots of evidence means very little to me unless you can explain its impact and significance.

I prefer very clear reasons as to why I should vote for your side at the end along with signposts (telling me which contention or plank you're moving onto). Be respectful to both me and your comepetiors.

I prefer traditional debate style but will not dock points if your case/points are progressive. That being said, please don't spread/talk really fast: again, quality over quantity.

I would like an impact calculus(telling me what points mean the most in round according to you and why) just to make my job easier but it's not necessary.

For L/D:

I love the Value/Criterion debate and will use that portion of the debate to determine how to weigh certain points in the round. All points should be connected in one way or another to the V/C

For Policy:

Make sure it's clear which plank or part of their plan you are attacking.

Any Kritiks should be discussed in the beginning of the speech

For PF:

Just make sure things are very clear in the debate.

For Borah Novice:

Welcome to your first tournament! My first tournament was very nerve-wracking, so I completely understand if you are nervous. I’m pretty laid back, so don’t worry about me being uptight. This is my second year in Policy Debate. I've competed at almost every tournament for policy and went to state for it as well, so I understand the policy rules.

I am a "Policymaker" judge. This means that I take the viewpoint of the policymaker, meaning that I vote for the side that presents the best policy option. I am very for disadvantages and counter plans, but I don't vote heavily on topicality or kritiks. However, if they are explained well, for me, they could be a prominent thing for me to vote on. Also, I am a person who values a plan on "prima facia". What that means is that I need to see a complete plan with every stock issue clear. For me, I value niceness. Obvoiusly, you don't have to be best friends with your opponents, and it’s a debate, you guys have to disagree, but I don't like to see when someone is being outright rude, it will not look good on your side and could risk you losing the round(depending on circumstance). Depending on what we do, e-mail chain or speech drop, I would like to be added. In all, I value niceness, am good on speed, and am willing to take mostly counterplans and disadvantages, but will take anything if explained well. Good luck, and have fun!

HELLO!!! My name is Neelam (She/Her) if we haven't met before :) Here's my email if you have any questions after the round or whatever gurungneelam133@gmail.com. Also, during rounds I prefer using speech drop when dropping cases and evidence, please and thank you ;) cause it's snazzy and I LOVE IT!✌

SNAZZY Info: I have debated all four years of high school, primarily focusing on policy debate. While I did participate in a few tournaments in high school for PF and LD, my familiarity with these events is at a basic level. Currently, I'm a first-year student at George Mason University majoring in government and international politics. I am also a member of their forensics team, competing in speech events. Anywho, I would love a clean flow of what's going on. I LOVE SNAZZY PIECES OF EVIDENCE, SO HAVE A CLEAR LINK AND WARRANT AND IMPACT! As a judge, I value debaters who make my job easier by explicitly stating why I should vote for them. Provide a compelling reason that simplifies the decision-making process for me and allows me to determine the winner of the round more efficiently. SO GIVE CLEAR VOTERS!!! REMEMBER TO GIVE ROADMAPS AND SIGNPOST!!! Have good speaking skills because this can help me clearly flow your arguments through. Also, please please be respectful and kind to your opponents! If not then your speaking points aren't going to look too great. If your opponents tells you not to spread then DONT!!! REMEMBER DEBATE SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYONE ;) When I was in high school I was often told that debate is a game you play with your friends, so HAVE FUN and make this a safe place for EVERYONE to enjoy debate!!!

LD:

When it comes to LD I am pretty traditional. I prefer to steer away from counterplans or theories and focus more on a traditional format. I believe LD debates should center around a clear clash of values and criterions. When presenting your case, please ensure it revolves around a well-defined value and criterion. It's crucial for me as a judge to understand the foundation of your argumentation. I've found that concise and accessible explanations are most effective. If there's any confusion in the definitions, I encourage debaters to provide clear explanations and offer resolutions to any potential disputes. In essence, make sure your value and criterion are articulated and directly linked to the resolution. This will not only enhance the quality of the debate but also make it easier for me to evaluate and assess your arguments.

PF:

I'm also traditional with PF. I find it challenging to follow arguments when spread in PF so a clear and steady pace is appreciated. As a flow judge, my priority is to follow your arguments coherently. Make sure to articulate your points clearly and provide a logical flow throughout the round. I place a strong emphasis on impact calc. When making your case, give me a comprehensive overview of the positive aspects of your side and why they outweigh your opponent's world. Impact calc is crucial for me to make an informed decision. Remember, dropping your opponent's arguments can impact my decision. Also, provide a framework in the round as well because it gives me an idea of what we're prioritizing in rounds. Framework debates are pretty cool. If a point is conceded, it will be taken into account when determining the outcome of the round for me. Tag teaming is okay as long as the partner isn't carrying their partner the entire cross. Each debater must contribute substantively during crossfire. I want to see how much you know about your case and how confident you are in presenting and defending your arguments. Also, PFers have forgotten to do this before but please give VOTERS!!! I love voters so make me vote for you!!!

Policy:

I LOVE POLICY DEBATE!!!! ❤️ Spreading is fine, if your opponents are cool with it. I am likely looking for clarity and explanation of the argument and an impact. Also, I will be flowing on paper of oncase and off case arguments on separate sheets of paper, so please give me time to change pages and switch pens. SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES, AUTHORS, AND DATES! Tag teaming is okay here, but don't carry the partner too much because that just makes you look bad girly.

Topicality:

Love topicality. I think T debates are best when the violation arguments are specific to the aff! I tend to default to competing interps, but that can be changed in rounds. Your interpretations and counter-interpretations should be topic-specific rather than generic! I will say don't do 8 minutes of T, that's just annoying low key.

DA:

I LOVE DAs!!! SO YOU DO YOU! When running DAs I would love clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. I will say I tend to look for a clear link first and then evaluate the impact, but that's just me. So that means I would love to see a good impact calc debate. However, avoid running nuke war or extinction impacts, it's stupid. Don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better. I appreciate detailed and nuanced arguments that showcase a deep understanding of the topic and the specific dynamics at play.

CPs:

CPs are FUN!!! Case-specific counter plans are better than generics, so I want to see that.

Ks:

I have an alright knowledge of Ks and I have run them before in high school, so it's fine by me if you ran it in round. Only run Ks if you GENUINELY understand how to run them, know that your opponents are comfortable with it, and have a deep comprehension of the K argument from start to finish. I prefer a well-executed K debate over a messy one where both sides seem lost. Please know the literature base well, explain it simply rather than using jargon as a crutch. When running a K you will have to do a lot of work to explain it to me, so literally treat me as if I'm a mom judge when it comes to Ks - break it down and make it accessible. When reading a K remember to frame the ballot. I want you to give me an idea on how your side is viewing the world. And don't forget framework too. I would like examples because this does give me an idea what your kritik argument is trying to come across in round. Alternative should have something solves or starts to solve the impacts from the link. You should tell me what they something is and how it solves.SO PLEASE WHEN RUNNING A K DO IT RIGHT AND KNOW IT!

Theory:

I feel iffy about them, but if you want to run it go ahead!! YOU DO YOU! Run the theory in the correct format though because many debaters don't.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions about the paradigm before round :)

Hello! I am a sophomore and this is my second year in debate. I mainly do LD but I have done some PF and little congress in the past. I would say that I mainly prioritize arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Another important thing in a debate is communication, make sure that I can hear you. You do not need to go slowly though, I just need to know what your arguments are. Tech over truth to an extent, don't say anything completely unhinged, but I will try and only take into account things said in round. I value clash a lot, attack your opponents arguments and defend what is said against yours. LD wise, I want a good value debate, convince me why we should use your value and criterion. I have not done much PF, but I would say that clash is important for me there. I have little to no experience in Policy and Congress, so I would say that clash and creating a good debating environment would take priority there. Overall, have a good and respectful round, do not be mean to your opponents.

Hello! My name is Hannah, pronouns: they/she. If you have any questions after the round, feel free to email me at hannah.kampfen@gmail.com. If you make a speech drop, I would like to be added to it.

General Info: I'm a debater of two years with the most experience in policy. I've been to State Debate twice for policy (was State Champion my senior year) and went to Nationals in policy my senior year. I've dabbled as well in PF and Congress. I have very little experience in LD. I'll put a separate paradigm for each type of debate, so jump to your type of debate so you can see what pertains to you. However, this part pertains to everyone: I like clean flows. Solid evidence is always appreciated, no matter the type of debate you do. I want clear links and warrants. Tell me why I should be voting for you at the end; you'll be making my job easier. I will listen to most arguments unless there is absolutely no link between them (ex: getting rid of lead pipes will lead to mass extinction (I hope a few of you know which resolution that argument is from)). Also, be respectful and kind to your opponents; if you aren't, I will not vote for you. Do not run any kind of arguments that are harmful towards anyone (racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.), as this will lose you speaker points and the round.

Policy: This is it right here everyone; the best type of debate. If you disagree, don't tell me; the judge is god (extra points if you know where that is from). First off, to get it out of the way, I am a firm believer that debate should be accessible to EVERYONE. If you have a panel or opponents that ask you before the round starts to not spread, DO NOT spread. This should be a common courtesy and falls into being respectful and kind. Topicality: I am not a typical T voter, but I will listen to your arguments. I would prefer if you didn't use an entire speech on T though, unless you feel it is absolutely necessary and you can justify why you did this. CPs: Go wild. I enjoy hearing a good CP, as long as it is nontopical. DAs: Love em. Run them as much as your debater heart wants. K's: I have very mixed feelings about K's. I never ran them in high school as I was a very traditional debater, but that's not to say I haven't ever encountered them and gone against them. However, if you do run them, I want them explained to me as if I'm a new judge and have no idea what debate even is, let alone what a K is. Basically, hold my hand really tight and don't let go of it the entire round unless you decide to drop the K. Speed: I am not the biggest fan of speed, but I won't vote you down if you do spread and everyone in the round is ok with it. What I will vote you down on is if I can't hear taglines and authors. Yes, I will have the speech drop open, but I will not rely on it through the whole round. Being a good debater also means being a good communicator, and I should clearly be able to hear your taglines and authors without having to rely on the speech drop. I do have a hard time with auditory processing at times, but since that is not something you will know since it varies based on the day and time, I will let you know before the round begins if I'm going to need you to have slower speed or not. Tag teaming: It's ok to tag team, but don't make your partner look stupid. What I mean by that is if your partner doesn't answer a question to its entirety, or they clearly need your help, you may step in to help them out.

PF: Do not run CBA as your framework. I will assume that everything is based off of a CBA framework, but there must be some kind of unique framework that you run. Provide evidence please; I have been in way too many PF rounds where there is only analytics and as a policy debater, I absolutely despise that. If you're making a new claim, there has to be evidence to back it up. Make sure to have clear links and warrants, and extend them all throughout the round. I will base my vote off of impact calc.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. I do not like the fact that plans, CPs, K's, and all that great policy stuff has made its way into LD. Debate with your value and criterion in mind, weigh your arguments, and be more rhetorical (using your own words more rather than relying on a bunch of cards).

Congress: Yeah, I know. "Why do you have a Congress paradigm?" Because Congress has become quite goofy in the past couple of years. First speech in affirmation should definitely be like a case read, as well as the first negative. Every other speech after that, unless you are introducing a completely new argument, should be rebuttals. You will be ranked lower if you run an argument I have already heard before. Repetition is boring and I don't like boring Congress rounds. This should feel like a really good extemp round.

Alright, that should cover the majority of it. If you have any other questions, go ahead and ask me before round. Good luck to everyone!

Hey! My name is Adelle Levanger (she/her). Please include me on the email chain – adellelevanger@gmail.com

Some background on me:

· I did policy (3 years) and LD (1 year) in highshcool

· I did mostly limited prep IEs in higschool

· I am competing in IPDA and several IEs in college right now

General

· I am big on tech>truth. I will come into the round a blank slate. What you tell me, I will believe (except for things like racism good or homophobia is justified- but that should be an obviously bad argument). If you tell me the sky is orange, I will buy it until it is disproven in the round. I have had so many rounds impacted by judge intervention and it is literally the worst- so i will do the best i can to keep my personal views on what is right/wrong out of things because this round is about your arguments, not what i think about things.

· However, because I am a blank slate you need to tell me how to vote. Give clear voters, impact calc, and framing. And be clear when you are kicking out of things.

· I am comfortable with speed. Please just be clear. I will flow whatever you say. I am confident I will be able to catch most of what you say, but if there is an email chain, I would like to be included so I don’t miss anything.

· Put offense on the flow! Having offense on the flow makes it much easier for you to win that argument.

· I like off time roadmaps and signposting. The more organization there is the more I can flow.

· Please have clash!

· I love debate, so just make it a fun round and enjoy yourself!

LD

· If you want to go fast, that is fine with me!

· Have clash and impacts and tell me which impacts to weigh first.

· Show me how you best meet the V/C.

· Aff doesn’t get inherent access to an advocacy, so if you read a counterplan you should prove why you deserve access to an advocacy.

PF

· I have my background in mostly policy, LD, and ipda, so I am not as experienced with PF. That being said, I am still comfortable following arguments and general debate lingo so don’t feel like you need to treat this like a totally comms round and explain all of the lingo. But still explain and warrant out your arguments.

Policy

On Case

· Tag teaming is fine. Just do it within reason. It should be clear who's cross it is supposed to be. But policy is a partner event for a reason. so feel free to work and collaborate with your partner, but don't overshadow them when it is their time to question or speak.

· I always ran policy affs, so that is where I am most comfortable. That being said, I will flow whichever type of aff you read.

· I am moderately informed on the NATO security topic, but if there are really nuanced arguments that require a solid understanding of current legislation or something like that, be clear with your warrants and explanations so I can follow you 100%

· Give me impact framing!

· I give aff fiat. You get to claim that your plan will pass. But you don’t get to fiat your solvency. You must prove that you actually solve.

· Case debates are fun, just make sure there is clash. And neg – work to put offense on the flow.

K-aff

· Again, I always ran policy affs, so that is where I am most comfortable. But I will still flow a k aff. But prove why your k is more important than the resolution!

· I am fairly comfortable with the general concepts of a lot of K authors (Baudrillard, Freud, Zizek, Foucault). But aside from Foucault, I haven’t read a ton of the actual literature, so be clear about your claims and warrants so I make sure I understand you correctly.

· There needs to be a way for all parties to engage with the kritik. Debate is a game we learn from. There are a lot of kritiks that center around identity and identity politics specifically. Someone in the round who does not fall under the identity in discussion should have the opportunity to engage in meaningful, educational, respectful, and constructive conversation surrounding the kritik. If someone is unable to engage because they are not personally impacted by the topic at hand, that is bad for debate and education. Discourse around someone's ability to engage with a topic surrounding identity can also lead to outing or disclosing information that someone doesn't feel comfortable sharing- which is never okay. so everyone in the room should be able to respectfully engage with the topic.

Disads

· I like disads! For my first two years of policy my neg strat was usually Disad and T.

· I am sympathetic to the fact that you have lost a lot of internal links over the past few years due to current events. But still work to have a clear and complete link chain.

· Have an impact and a link please. It is tricky to weigh a disad that has no impact or link.

Kritiks

· I got into K debate my last year of policy debate. I think Ks are really fun. I usually ran Biopower, Chaos/Entropy, and occasionally cap or disability.

· Just make sure you have a good link and an impact

Topicality

· I ran a lot of T in policy. My affs were also a little on the untopical side of things, so I did a lot of T debate as aff too.

· Have impacts to your T shells

· I buy that T (and Kritiks) are A Priori voting issues.

Counterplans

· I never read a ton of counterplans, but I am comfortable enough with them to follow.

· Consider slowing down on your Text just a little bit so I make sure I get it all.

· You need to have a net benefit of some sort. A disad or even a turned advantage. But you need to be able to do something that the aff can’t do.

Theory

· I think Theory is fun. Just explain it and impact it out

Everyone:

tldr: I know this is a lot of information. But I think the most important thing you should know is the tech>truth thing. I really will do my best to be a blank slate. Tell me what to buy, what to evaluate, and how to vote. Feel free to ask me more specific questions before the round or email me with questions when you get ballots back. Have fun!!

My name is Gideon Martin, and I'm a Speech and Debate Judge with extensive experience on both sides.

Speech: I'm looking for great presentation, excellent vocabulary, and a clear understanding of your topic. Having a speech that is well structured and easy to follow is a huge plus. (If your competing in an event that requires sourcing, make sure that you properly source your speech. I can't believe any sort of statistics or information you give me if you don't have a source to back it up.)

Debate: Clear, logical, and well sourced arguments are what I'm looking for. Make sure your arguments/evidence are quantifiable. Prove to me that I should prefer your sources and evidence to your opponents, or that they outweigh your opponents arguments. Make sure that there is clash between your case and your opponent. I also want to be given clear voters. You need to tell me exactly why I should vote for your side. (Especially in Final Focus for all you pfers)

Background:

I did debate for about 2 and a half years, sticking mostly with policy. I was the novice/ policy captain of my team my senior year. I was a semi-finalist at state in open policy and attended 2022 nationals as part of a world schools team! I have dabbled into other forms of debate but am not nearly as comfortable with them as I am with policy.

All Debate Types:

I am not familiar with the current years topics, but can catch on pretty quick. I am pretty flexible as to what I'll vote on but mostly stick to the flow and take comms into consideration. Speed is fine, if you are going too fast I will ask to see your document just to read along. Prog debate is also fine, just make sure you understand it and you don't abuse it. I won't flow CX unless you bring it up in another speech. You are allowed to time yourselves. I will do my best to keep time and give you time signals, however, I often get caught up in the debate and forget about the time. Lastly, make sure you are being kind to one another, don't yell at one another, respect each others pronouns etc.

Policy:

You guys are the luckiest group because I understand policy the best of all debate types. I am mostly tech > truth. Run K's, theory, topicality, DA's, CP's, I don't really care, as long as you do it right (if you don't it doesn't mean you will loose, I will just explain it to you in the RFD). I will be flowing so make sure you address all arguments, even if it's just to say you are kicking it. I DO NOT allow ins-and-outs and strong advise against tag-teaming, but again won't drop you for it. Spreading is good, again just do it correctly. I can understand a good spreader but will not follow if you are mumbling. I will try to time but may get caught up flowing or listening so timing yourself is strongly advised. Make sure to include voters in your last speech. Also, I WILL NOT flow CX, if something important comes up, you tell me in your next speech. I may ask for cards during the round so its easiest to add me to the email chain- taylorbellemelanese@gmail.com

LD:

LD is one of the events i am more comfortable with. I watched quite a bit at nationals and all of my best debate buddies did LD, so I've done my fair share of prep. I can keep up with any prog debate you wanna run and am fine with speed. Some of the lingo is newer to me so try to explain it in the first speech so I don't miss anything. Make sure to include voters in your last speech.

PF:

I understand PF at a very basic level, so go easy on me. Don't necessarily dumb your debate down, but go easy on the lingo and don't just assume I know things (PF specific things obviously). Make sure to give voters, be nice to your opponents and don't overpower each other too much during the grand crossfire.

Congress:

Unfortunately I have never done nor watched congress so I'm going in to this event pretty blind. Think of me as a mom judge here.

For policy debate I consider myself to be primarily a stock-issues judge. I have experience in policy and recognize the importance of the stock issues, as well as debaters clearly explaining their arguments surrounding the stock issues. I am not against theory, but hold kritiks and counter plans to a very high standard. My judging mindset is tab-ras within reason (i.e. if I know something is highly incorrect from personal/professional experience it will be scrutinized, but otherwise I leave the debate to the debaters).

From speakers I appreciate confident and well paced arguments. I will flow most rounds and even though very fast speaking does not prevent me from flowing, it is not encouraged.

Hey guys! I'm a fairly lenient judge and will agree with most arguments. I tend to flow debates, definitely not because I'm stealing everyone's cases. Try to not drop arguments unless it's strategic, explain everything to me like I'm 5, fill time, and you should be good! Just make sure to be kind to your opponent, I'll drop your speaks and maybe your round if you seem like you're being intentionally rude. Feel free to ask me any other questions about my preferences before you begin the debate. Just make sure to have fun!

Policy: I did policy for a few tournaments my senior year, but I firmly believe it’s the best debate event. Judging policy, I go firmly tech over truth, unless there’s something obviously problematic. If you opponents say something in round, I’m going to believe it unless you respond to it.

Whatever you go for to win the round, you need to explain it to me well and clearly out-impact everything your opponent has. If your voter is an advantage or a DA, make sure the link is still strong.

K: I have next to no experience with Ks, but they’re one of my favorite parts of Policy debate. I’ll consider them a major voting issue, but only if you explain it well.

T: This is my jam. Theory and topicality debates are the best part of policy, and I think it should be normalized in every event. I’ll weigh T as the most important issue in the round if someone brings it up. I prefer T in shell form, it’s more fair for both teams and makes it easier for me to flow as a judge.

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

PREFACE: I have not judged a single round (this year) before this tournament (The Trojan War) so I have no idea about topic-specific references like acronyms, nuanced issues, etc. If you do the legwork to define an ambiguous issue right before you present it in the debate, that would be ideal! (No need for more than that, I can pick it up the first time)

I did debate all four years of high school and now two years in college. I mostly debated in Policy and LD while in high school.

I did Radio, Extemp, and some interp for speech.

I flow and take notes on my laptop. You can assume that I am paying attention even when I'm buried in the screen.

I am easily distracted. Talking to me directly, telling me what evidence to look at and where, clear signposting, sending over speech documents, etc. ensures that your words make their way onto my flow.

I believe any argument as true unless tested by some analytic or evidence.

I will not weigh arguments that attack a person's identity.

Try your best to make the debate accessible to everybody. If someone doesn't like speed, then don't go fast. (For example)

I am not perfect when it comes to bias, but I try my best to be a blank slate. Run whatever arguments you want. (I am only familiar with very basic K literature/strategy so be mindful of that)

I believe debate is a game so taking it "seriously" matters insofar as how we talk about impacts. Treating death as hilarious is different from giving a sarcastic answer in cross-ex. I'm okay with the latter. I'll give you a boost in speaks if you can make the debate enjoyable with non-problematic jokes.

I'll give you speaker points based on a combination of your in-round strategy and delivery.

I am a Stock/Comm judge with a particular emphasis on Communications. While I do use the stock issues to guide my voting I give primary consideration to the side that most clearly explains their argument. I do not draw conclusions or inference for you, please, take me by the hand and lead me to your argument's conclusion.

Speed is the root of all evil. As a Communications judge I am looking for the combination of good argumentation that is presented in a way that I can understand. I consider my flow to be the paramount flow in the round. If you are moving so fast that I can not flow your case those arguments does not make it to my flow and will not be considered in my decision.

I also prefer respectful clash during Cross Examination. Please use the time ask questions that advance your position not just review cards presented in the previous presentation.

When it comes to LD my major concern is that there is a strong understanding of how V&C interact. This means more than mentioning your V&C. Please show me how your criterion validates your value. As with policy, communicating your argument clearly is very important.

I am an old school debater, policy for 4 years, and a variety of speeches.
I like evidence, speed is fine. I like it when your main points are highlighted.
Be kind to each other.

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.

-Mark Twain

young.broox@gmail.com - shoot me an email if you have any questions or concerns, or if you want specific feedback post-tourney.

I’m Broox, an undergraduate student in English and philosophy. I Have been a Finals Panelist Judge in Congress at the annual Nationals Tournament and have judged Congressional Debate and other events for 5+ years.

My most important rule is to keep decorum and be respectful.

In terms of my general debate paradigm;

Go ahead and read whatever case you want—even theory if you think you can.

I like to think that I'm generally well informed but treat me as if I’m an idiot(I am.)

Absolutely do your best to write my ballot for me in the last few speeches, I will evaluate the arguments you tell me to. Unless that is, what you're telling me to evaluate is stupid, which I will probably tell you on your ballot(respectfully we hope.) If you don't tell me how to evaluate your—and/or your interlocutors'—arguments, I will not know how you want me to weigh them.

I try not to call cards often unless opposite things are being said about the same piece of evidence. Or if you tell me to call a card.

Please don’t spread I’ll probably cry, I can flow at any speed at this point, but spreading will reflect poorly on your speaks.

pleaSE signpost. I neither need nor want your off-time roadmap if you signpost effectively.

Probably most importantly; Good luck, have fun.