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

Policy:

I am looking, ultimately, for proof that you understand your own case. That means having a clear warrant and backing up your case with logic. Don’t spread. I’m okay with theory debate as long as it is run alongside other arguments. So you can keep your k’s, as long as you also address inherency and uniqueness/solvency and topicality/impact debate. Keep things civil and polite as we are here to grow, learn, and educate.

LD:

Value/Criterion are essential. You’ll be ranked primarily on how well you handle values. Theory debate/plans are okay, but not my favorite, so ground your debate in the essentials if you run those. I flow cx, though if you’d rather I not, then that’s just fine.

BQ and PF:

I will be looking for clear, simple debate and a mastery of the flow. I flow cx.

"I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguments and communicate effectively. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your argument and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. I also appreciate being given a heads up on trigger warnings. If you are not sure if it counts as a trigger warning, just keep in mind that anything involving suicide, rape, abuse, miscarriage, abortion, etc. is a trigger for me. For Debate events, keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!"

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.

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

"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.

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.

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!

I do not have a background in speech and debate, other than judging over the last two years. However, I have always been a good listener and am willing to hear people out on any given subject without getting too riled up. I have always been able to see from many points of view on many subjects, and appreciate well thought out, factual, and calm responses to any argument. I don't mind some speed when talking, as long as words still come out clear. I do enjoy judging and look forward to learning even more as I go.

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.

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.

I am mostly a Communications Judge, though I am open to new styles of speaking and debating. I don't understand most of the jargon of debate and I still would consider myself a new judge, especially to debate.

My partner of 5 years was a highly awarded debater in high school and college, so I am used to the quick speaking and some debate-world lingo. Not only that, but my roommate is a high school debate teacher!

I respect and look for clear-speaking voices, strong arguments, a great thesis, and charisma in my debates/speeches.

I graduated from Idaho State University in Spring 2023 and have a Bachelor's Degree in Music Education. I am now an elementary music teacher. I have worked with all ages of students and I love teaching. I am 24 years old and I have judged speech and debate for my roommate several times since 2020, so I am not brand new.

(And yes- I do handshakes!)

Cheers! :)

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2021. I didn't do debate or speech in high school but my son does Policy and that's why I'm here.

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality arguments and if you bring something up, you better be ready to defend it. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits.

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates. Remember to have fun and never stop being an inspiration!

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’m a communications judge. Please speak clearly enough that I can understand your ideas. I can handle a faster pace but make sure you're not speaking quickly so you can repeat yourself. Give me voters at the end. I ask that you maintain professionalism and that you're respectful to your opponent's and judges.

Policy: Don't argue the Neg begins at a disadvantage or there is an uneven playing field. I will take that to mean you believe you can't beat any of the Aff arguments.

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 :)

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.

Please speak clearly and distinctly, especially early in your initial construction.
This helps me to understand your framework and also make it easier to remember everything you said.

Debate:

• Quality of argument over quantity
• Evidence to back up argumentation.
• Articulate your point - you can go as fast as you want as long as I can understand you.
• Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending. There is no room for that.
• Use your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story
• Use your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.
• Use your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled.
• Use your final focus to make me vote for you.
• Convince me

Congress:

• You have a limited amount of time so try and get as many speeches in as you can.
• However, just because you speak the most, doesn’t mean you will get 1st. Your speeches need to be spoken with clarity, poise, and facts.
• Be ready to back up your argument during questioning. While you are getting questioned, answer respectfully.
• While you are questioning another speaker, be respectful. I will bump you down in rank for being disrespectful
• Just because you are the P.O. does not get you ranked 1st. As a P.O. you need to be respectful of your fellow representatives. If you make faces during someone’s speech or questioning, your rank will go down. If you play favorites, your rank will go down. If you are rude, your rank will go down.
• I judge you based off of your speeches, your answers, and what you ask your fellow representatives.
• if you are down right rude, you will get a very low score. You can be competitive and still do it respectfully.

Speeches:

• Your speech needs to hold my attention as well as your audience.
• You need to engage with your audience and make them feel as though this is the only speech they ever want to listen to
• You need to speak clearly and articulate. If I can’t understand you, I am unable to evaluate you
• Your speech should have a wow factor. Make your speech so interesting that I go back to the judge’s lounge and tell everyone about how great it was.

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.

For basic background, I'm a first-year judge and three-year speech and debater with heavy experience in Lincoln Douglas and interpretation events. My paradigm is not a one-size-fits-all for every event, so they break down as follows:

Congress- The first thing I look for in a speaker is their ability to relate their ideas to the topic at hand. Relevancy is huge and so is presentation; grab your audience and let them know what you're saying is important. Etiquette is a given during a round, respect and constraint are key to gaining my vote. I'm huge on quality over quantity in Congress. Overall, I don't look for the number of speeches, but rather the content of what you're saying and asking during your time. Use it wisely.

Speech Events:

Interp Events- I look for the ability to create your presentation out of given materials. Being creative and unique will gain my vote, along with the actual ability to relate your ideas together. Making a piece that coherently flows together will do competitors well in my eyes. Overall, I like pieces that feel like I'm watching a small show, that pulls me in and fully intrigues me.

Other events:

Keeping your audience engaged is a key point in these events, along with keeping your information relevant and entertaining. For sales, radio, and similar events, creating a character-audience dynamic will do well for me. For impromptu and extemp, building a solid speech with good structure and captivation is a key aspect. Overall structure and good content are what I'm looking for here.

My paradigm addresses two central elements: civility and common good versus individual rights scenarios.

1. I'd like a revoltingly civil round please. Refrain from interruptions, name-calling, eye-rolling, and terse or inflammatory language. My bias is that incivility cripples any debate in an instant and squelches the learning and knowledge-sharing that can be gained from civil discourse. It ceases to be a debate with the introduction of incivility.
2. If you present an argument that favors individual rights, I'd like to see a mention of how it may or may not impact the common good , and vice versa - an argument focusing on the common good should have a consideration of any impact on individual rights.

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.

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!

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

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. :)

I've been judging for more than 12 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

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.

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.

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 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.

I am a communications judge. I want to hear clear speech mostly! I am mostly fine with most speeds, just try not to speed so much that you are out of breath and stumble. Tell me why you should win and why your opponent(s) should lose. Use voters as the cherry on top to get me to sway to your side. Be confident with your speeches and crossfires. Get information out of questions. Dont be rude as well. You can get points across while being calm, cool and collected!

Congress- I want to hear good speech structures, preparedness, barely reading off of computer or paper. Project to the chamber and provide emphasis on the important parts. Provide evidence!! Key thing in congress is to back up your points with evidence. If theres no evidence, its gonna bump you down. Refute points! I cannot stress this enough, it theres just repeat speeches over and over again then its boring and no one likes it.

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.

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate 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 respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

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.

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.

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).

I will evaluate the methodology and reputation of evidence and sources presented to back up your case. I will keep track of the flow and will take note at your speaking ability, but what makes me sign the ballot at the end of the day is how well researched your cases were, if you had any creative arguments that support your side of the flow, whether or not you were a compelling speaker, and how much critical thinking your team showcases by the end of the round. It is my core belief that critical thinking, research, creativity, and confident speaking are the skills you can get from debate. Take liberty with the kinds of arguments you run but keep these four criteria in mind. I am familiar with most of the high school debate vocabulary, and a broad scientific and quantitative background. Don’t dumb down your argument, just explain it concisely and correctly. Explain your arguments well, but I do not need you to treat me like a layperson.

Best of luck and congratulations for participating in debate, it is a transformative experience. I hope you go on to make a positive impact in the world with your future careers.

Congress: I used to do Congress. I prefer it if you speak less time with new and good arguments. Don’t repeat points or have a week speech. Stay engaged with questioning. I am ok with an informal room.

LD: VC is a weighing mechanism. Relate your contentions to it. A dominant CX and clear voting issues wins the round.

PF/Policy: this is partner debate. I want both partners to emphasize a clear story throughout and have relatively equal CX and speaking ability.

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.

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'm not extraordinarily experienced in the debate world, as this is my second year judging. That being said, I am knowledgeable about argumentation, evidence, theory, etc. as an English teacher so please be careful and intentional when backing things up with evidence. I've found that I really appreciate clear signposting as you go through your speech. What I don't appreciate is speaking so quickly that I'm unable to take notes. If I don't have time to write down your argument or evidence, it doesn't exist to me when I go to make a decision on the winner.

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.

Communications and Impacts

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.

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 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.

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.