I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD:

Please add me to the email chain: baxteremily22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for four years at Caddo Mills High School and am on the LD team at UNT. I'm familiar with policy and critical arguments, so run whatever you're comfortable with. I will vote on anything, so I'd be best considered a tab judge if you're doing the work and telling me why they matter.

Tech>Truth. I'll only vote on the dropped argument if you explain to me why the drop is significant.

Depth>Breadth. Self-explanatory - if you are running more than 6 off, there probably isn't much warranting going on. Evidence quality is also important, and comparing evidence is super useful in making decisions, but I won't do the work for you.

Affirmatives. I prefer plantexts, but I'll listen to anything, just be able to explain later on in T and FW debates why your method of education is best for debate. I'll listen to performance affs, too.

Counterplans/Disads. I'll easily vote on them. If AFF has impact framing and you don't, I will likely vote aff. I prefer counterplans to be mutually exclusive and have a net benefit while solving for at least some of the cases.

Kritiks. Just reading all of the blocks you've written for your K won't help you win the round. Do engage with the other team's arguments and actually contextualize your link to whatever they've read. Generic links can make it really easy for me to vote aff. I love specific links to the aff, and will heavily vote on them. I know some lit but don't assume I know what your kritik is about. Please explain and paint a story for me. That said, I expect there to be framework, a roll of the ballot/judge claim, a link, impact, and an alt. I want to know how the way I vote impacts the world or pertains to the argument that you're making.

Theory/Topicality.I look to theory before evaluating the rest of the round. I will listen to Topicality arguments, and think when theyre are done right, I will vote on them. Please impact out your standards and voters! I expect you to go all in on it. If you aren't spending all your time in your last speech on theory/topicality, that tells me that it's a time suck, and I will not vote on it.

Speaks. Just don't be rude. If you say something offensive/homophobic/racist/etc, that will not be tolerated, and that will be reflected in your speaker points and possibly your ballot. I'm completely fine with speed just put me on the email chain and signpost.

If you have any specific questions or concerns about my paradigm, don't be afraid to ask before the round starts.

Please speak at conversational speed and prove your values with facts that back up your points.

abell09@yahoo.com - For documents you may want me to review.

ryandebate7@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Ryan. I've been competing on the national circuit for almost a year now at Jasper High School in Texas, mainly reading philosophy and policy arguments. The way I judge is fairly simple, so the rest will be some notes that I keep on updating as I gain more experience in debate.

• I like debates centered around the resolution and its questions, whether that's philosophically, critically, etc. Convincing me that debate itself is bad or unfairness and being non-topical is good will be difficult for you. I will still vote for these positions, but unhappily and at the cost of your speaker points. As much as I try to prevent my biases from influencing how I judge, that's just how I feel.
• When judging, I look towards impacts first, so you should weigh.
• Stay organized and speak in a way that is understandable and efficient. I can handle whatever speed you're going to go, but I won't evaluate what I can't understand, so slow down if you notice me losing you or not really flowing anymore.

If you have any questions, you can shoot me an email or ask me before the round. Have fun!!!

He/Him

I am a parent judge. I have never done debate and am new to judging. I judge LD and PF. I am completely new to both events. Please adapt to be more lay and extend everything. If an argument is too unclear, I default to voting off whoever makes the more clear response or extension. Please do not run any sort of progressive debate- K’s, Phil, Tricks, Theory, and any other form of prog debate will not be considered as I don’t understand it. Don’t spread either. If you are aggressive in round I will dock speaks. Abuse such as racism, hate speech, homophobia, and sexism will be an instant drop and 25 speaks. Have fun in round!

I am a new judge, No spreading, and Don't be rude.

Disclosure is going to be important, so don't forget to send me your cases - aliyanarah@gmail.com

Debate is an activity that should be educational and fun for everyone involved.

About me:

This is my second year debating at the University of North Texas in NFA LD. Before college, I participated in modern oratory and have always enjoyed the speech and debate activities. I previously worked at the Mean Green debate camp and enjoyed assisting in the LD pool. I'm excited to see what everyone has to bring to the table today!

What I Look For, LD: LD cases have infinite prep time, so I expect your case to be organized and the presentation clean. I would like to preface that, although I believe disclosure is important in debate, I do not believe it is important enough to win a round. For affirmative cases, make sure that you know what you are talking about, and if you don’t, then make sure you don’t show it. This case is your baby, and you should treat it like it. I think plans are good, and keeping it on topic is better, but if you decide to debate outside of the resolution, just let me know beforehand. If evidence is introduced during the 2AR, I do not flow it; it doesn't affect my decision. For negative cases, counter-plans, kritiks, and disadvantages are always encouraged. Kritiks brings a fun debate round for sure, but make sure they are executed cleanly. Even if the affirmative case was disclosed, I expect you to pay attention and flow during the round.

What I Look for, PF: Public forum is used to help educate your audience. The goal of this debate is to convince and educate your audience. Every debate should be under the assumption that the judge has no prior knowledge of the topic and must inform them of their case. I believe nothing should ever be left for assumption or interpretation. Every debater should decide how they want the judge and audience to think.

Tanya Reni Galloway

I enjoy analyzing the quality of evidence, persuasive techniques, and presentation style of all debate categories. I have judged all debate categories over the past 10 plus years including Congress, FX, DX, CX, LD, PF, BQ, and WS. I am an old-school purist. I judge all categories so I prefer that each category stays in its own lane. Having said that, I realize many students love progressive argumentation, so I say tabula rasa. I will judge the style they are trained in and give feedback accordingly. It is always about the student. My feedback and comments, on my ballots, are designed to empower the student to take their game in debate and life to the next level. I believe our speech and debate students are developing themselves as leaders and can use their skills to make profound differences when applied to areas of life that matter to them.

I also judge all IE events. I love OO, when done well, it is like a mini TED talk. I love to see the WHY. Why did the student choose the topic or selection? What resonates for them? In the categories which require acting skills, I really look for a connection between the student and the selection, when the student embodies the selection and becomes the character. I believe acting skills can build empathy and connection to the human condition. These students can use these skills and apply them in an area of life that they are passionate about and make a difference in the world. They can be the voice for others, who do not have the courage or opportunity to speak or perform in front of others.

I competed in high school and college and won awards in acting, singing, and public speaking events. I was a professional actress and trained at the Film Actors Lab. I am a trained toastmasters judge. I currently lecture on art as therapy. I was also the manager of the Communications Programs for the Dallas branch of a global personal and professional develop company, Landmark Worldwide.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of academic sports. Speech and debate participation provides cognitive and behavioral enhancement. It improves reading, listening, speaking, critical thinking, and writing skills. It also improves motivation and increases curiosity and engagement. I enjoy empowering the future leaders of our community and world. I encourage the students to take the skills they are learning and to apply them to areas of life that are of concern to them now, so they can make a difference and learn the practical value of their skills. It increases engagement for both at-risk and gifted students. I also think coaches are rock stars! Thank you for the difference you make each day with your students. It takes heart, dedication, patience, and perseverance, You are the one they will always remember.

Hi, my name is Holly Garrison (They/Them) and I'll be your judge.

I have done debate for long enough to understand how most of this stuff works. I'm the student coach at Colleyville Heritage.

You don't have to but if you do make an email chain add me at Hollydebate22@gmail.com

PF

• Tech over truth(If you make an argument back it up)
• I'm okay with progressive arguments
• Please don't spread My therapist said it was bad for me
• No bigotry, please
• It's PF so please don't run a K, there isn't enough time in a round to do the discussion justice so you are just reading it for a win
• When it comes to weighing my value, unless otherwise disproven, is utilitarianism(most good for most people)
• I don't flow crosses but I do pay attention
• #abolishgrandcross

LD

Short and Simple

• I will value any argument so long as it is not racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything bigoted.
• DO NOT spread. Even if you have a speech doc if you are not coherent I will not flow your argument.
• I'm very tech so if you are going to present an argument please provide some sort of evidence(either analytic or sourced)
• I prefer if teams disclose without it being a big deal but feel free to not disclose as long as you are speaking clearly
• I have experience with a lot of the theory arguments but if you are unsure if you should run something then show up early and ask me
• I don't believe in Trick arguments so please don't try to run anything intentionally abusive just to get the win
• If you have any questions about anything specific or anything after the round please email atHollydebate22@gmail.com

Long and Complicated

Framework- I will value any framework. I do believe when submitting a framework you should have some definitions of your value and your criterion that way there can be an actual framework debate. I'm decent with framework debates but I've never really enjoyed them; however, I will still flow all framework debates. I also do not need a philosophy with your framework but if you have one more power to you.

Disclosure- I would prefer if everyone discloses sometime before your speech. I'm open to any form of disclosure(Speechdrop, Email chain, the new tabroom speech drop, case list) so long as I get the speech doc. I also don't believe in this new contact disclosure theory so please don't run that.

Spreading and Speed-Even if you sent me your speech doc I do not want you spreading. I can handle speed but if I cannot understand you I will shout "clear" to tell you to slow down. If you speed back up I will not be able to flow as I can only flow so fast. I am ok with a fair amount of speed but just please don't be doing 6 contentions and a framework in 6 minutes.

Topicality -I need either limits or grounds to flow them and I need appropriate voters to properly value them. Do not just stand up and call your opponent abusive and tell me to strike them. Tell me why your opponent's argument shouldn't be valued or I will still keep it on my flow.

Theory- Like topicality, I typically need some grounds and you CANNOT just stand up and call your opponent abusive. Theory(when done well) will be valued first before impacts so please if you are reading some sort of theory or theory shell please just do it well.

Kritiks- I've read some of the literature(Edelman, Puar, Marx, Engles, Fisher) but I've never loved K debates. If you want to read a K I do have high expectations because you are purposefully changing the round away from the resolution so I need this to be a well-thought-out argument if you are planning on running some like a K.

DA's- For the Disadvantage to win it needs to either Turn, Outweigh, or Solve the case. And I am not going to be doing the work for you on this one. Tell me why you are winning and show me where you are winning.

Counter Plans- I will always love counter plans. I think, when done well, they are really strong. Just make sure that if your opponent doesn't provide their own plan text your counter plan is against the whole resolution.

Perms- I understand perms and I think they are strong counters to counter plans but I need proper answers to the counter plan and not just "perm do both"

Plan/No plan aff- I do not require a plan on the aff and I'm ok with any type of affs so long as they're clear and understandable. So long as the argument isn't bigoted I'll flow it.

I prefer if everyone keeps their own time. I will have a stopwatch going to keep your time but the round will go a lot smoother if you keep your own time. I will allow a grace period of about 10 seconds before I just stop flowing and I will cut you off after about 25 seconds over.

I

flow what I hear so if you're clear I'll flow it. I flow on a computer so please do not accuse me of not flowing.

Also, try to pay attention during the round but if you need to check your phone or type something just don't be disruptive

If you have any questions before or after the round please email me at Hollydebate22@gmail.com

Let's have a good round y'all

I am a speech kid. I don't know too much about debate. I don't do well with speed, so try to speak slowly so that I understand your arguments. Please don't run Kritiks or Theory because I do not know how to evaluate it. Extend your arguments in all speeches or I will consider them dropped. I will ask to clear if I can't understand. If you don't fix it after three times I will drop argument. Send all docs through email or SpeechDrop. NOVICES ONLY

email for email chain:

ghumman_anup@lovejoyisd.com

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.comandlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

LD

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

I am a former LD debater returning to judge for the first time in over 10 years in Fall 2023.

My strong preference is to hear you debate the resolution at hand. Therefore I will only consider traditional arguments.

I also strongly prefer quality of arguments over quantity, consider that before you spread.

To send documents my email is aimee.henderson@gmail.com

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

If your career trajectory is influenced by debate, you will find yourself having to persuade

A) experts who will rip you to pieces on technicalities, and
B) generalists who require orientation and clear signposting.

Group A is rare outside the sciences or the legal profession, and even there they tend to stand out as unusual.

Group B is far more common. They proliferate in business and management. Odds are good you'll be working for someone of this type in the future. They require introductions, context, clarity, and concision when being pitched or persuaded.

Lucky you, you've drawn someone from Group B.

First time volunteer judge.

Take a beat, relax, and prepare to convince me that you are right.

We are not at an auction. Audible gasps between paragraphs are a good sign that you're going too fast. I appreciate that you've got a lot of points to put on the table, but I will not be receptive to spreading.

Find your strongest arguments and clash on those. Treat them with care, not like chaff. If you make an assertion I expect you to defend it in each speech. I will be flowing, as much as you allow (you're dealing with a layman here). Did I mention no spreading? If I can't follow I'll say "clear" and hold up a hand, and continue to do so until the pace becomes manageable. Keep in mind, while that hand is up I won't be typing, so the points you're making won't be evaluated. If after the second verbal cue the speed is still excessive, speaker points will start dropping and you are likely to lose the round.

Be respectful of your opponents. Treat them like they're your ride home. You may be colleagues one day, and you are already creating your professional reputation.

Clarification questions in CX are to clarify. They are not opportunities to browbeat your opponent into a yes or no answer. Tricking someone into saying something won't fly here. I'll be evaluating the positions as they are presented with clarifications as necessary. No points for verbal bullying.

Be respectful of the process. Demonstrate that you have come prepared to pitch, present, persuade. Know your arguments inside and out. If you're not convinced of them, no one else will be either.

Be flexible with the process. Deploy Kritiks or Theory at your own risk. I'll err on the side of Truth over Technique when in doubt. Tricks are to be avoided.

Be clear with your arguments. Lay out a roadmap, call out the signposts, and remind me what to weigh when voting on the outcome. Clarity will be rewarded when points are doled out.

Email your case to LD@siyote.net, and if possible send a recording of your speeches at the end of the round.

Avoid being offensive in your delivery, your content, and your arguments. I do not take exception readily, but I am hypervigilant when it comes to shielding others from discrimination.

As far as Speaker Points go, you're going to have to really work at it to get higher than a 29.4 or lower than a 26.9 - but you can, and if you do it'll probably be obvious to the entire room that it was earned. I'm not here to screw up your scores. I'm here to adjudicate a memorable contest. Relax, and have fun with this.

I am a new parent judge.

Hi, I'm Aashik Khakoo, I'm a traditional judge but have had 30+ years public speaking experience.

I'd prefer to be on the email chain, but please do not spread.

Please speak like you are giving a Ted Talk

Also for 1AC in LD, I prefer you read only part of the cards highlighting bullet points of your cards, which will leave you time to create an analytical section to help persuade me rather than just reading your cards, which is what’s happened in the past. I’m happy to clarify this if needed before, starting the debate.

I prefer analytical debates over card dumping, and please line by line your opponents case.

Please send documents ahead of time - my email address is akhakoo2@gmail.com

Keep Cross efficient, and give short answers to all as many questions as possible.

I see debate as a performance, and prefer truth > tech

Please create clash in the round don't just extend your arguments

I will not tolerate speaking over each other, or any racist, sexist, homophobic etc, arguments

Aashik

Email: lees24@greenhill.org - Used to debate for Greenhill

Hi. The AFF should defend a meaningful departure from the status quo. Bring your best and have fun! I'm not a robot, so I always appreciate it when you make the debate interesting and engaging.

My Thoughts:

1. Argument quality > Argument quantity

2. Collapsing, weighing arguments, and giving clear judge instruction is very important.

3. Speed is fine, just be clear. I'll tell you to be clearer if I can't understand you.

4. Tech > Truth but every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact.

5. Good for most strategies (Policy, Ks, T/Theory), but please don't read tricks in front of me. I understand theory as a strategic tool, but I'm not a fan of frivolous theory and am receptive to reasonability in these debates.

6. I'm going to need more explanation in Phil vs Phil debates.

7. Don't over-adapt to me. Bringing your best effort and having fun will result in higher speaker points.

8. If you're clearly better than your opponent, please make the debate simple so we can make the round more educational.

Email: ronaldlongdebate@gmail.com

Competed in events through UIL, TFA, TOC, and NSDA circuits. UT Austin 2020, hook 'em horns.

You either win, you learn, or both.

2021-June 2023: Director of Speech and Debate, Callisburg High School

2018-2021: High School debate consultant

2018-2020: Policy Debate, NDT and CEDA circuits, University of Texas at Austin

2018-2020: Student Assistant, UIL State Office - Speech and Debate

2014-2018 years: Speech and Debate, Princeton High School

Sparknotes:

I think I am a gamer judge. For the most part, I treat debate as a game. You can run any argument, and it should have some claim, warrant, and impact. Do what you do best. I evaluate arguments by comparative analysis through a lens of offense/defense. I vote close to how I flow. I look for specificity, line-by-line, warrants, and contextualization. I’ll vote for any argument under any framework you explicitly put me in and win. Typically, I evaluate tech over truth. Around the neg block, I like a strategic collapsing of arguments. If you can't beat a bad argument, you should probably lose on it.

For other specific strategies and threshold questions, ask me before the round.

Don't...

make offensive or rude comments. I’ll probably start deducting speaker points.

cheat, for the most part, that means don’t clip cards.

Logistical Stuff:

Do not unnecessarily draw out flashing/speech drop/email chains.

Speaking:

Speed is fine; go as fast as you want (after GT-AM 500 WPM, I may yell “clear” twice before I stop flowing).

I like catching theory args, analysis, warrant-level debating, and sometimes authors, so slow down a bit there.

“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer; if you use it, it’s minus one speak.

Framework:

I'm fine with good framework debate and am okay with voting under any framework you explicitly tell me to. I think it usually comes down to winning some argument about why you have a better model of debate and/or some methodology. There should be an impact or offense to whatever standard you extend. You should probably be winning some piece of offense under that framework. Impact framing on arguments you plan on winning under the framework debate is probably helpful.

T:

I don't really default to competing interps or reasonability. It depends on the debate. There are general parts of T. If you go for T, then explain and have an impact or an explanation to your standards (like limits and ground) and voters (like fairness and education). This usually includes warranted reasons to prefer and comparative analysis. For Aff specifically, I think it is strategic that you have some offense, pre-fiat arguments against T, a discussion of case lists, and/or neg args.

Theory:

I think theory involves the rules and/or norms of debate that are challenged, changed, or presented. I think theory arguments have general components. I was never a theory hack or anything. If you go for a(n) potential/in-round abuse story, then it is probably offense, and you should give me warrants and have an impact story. Tell me how and why I should evaluate. If you run any theory (especially if it’s what you decide to go for), you probably need to warrant it and have some framing mechanism and some offense.

Note: I probably default to fairness as an internal link to education for impacts like education or fairness, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Disads:

When you win the disad, you should also be winning some disad-case comparison portion of the debate (disad outweighs case, disad turns case, case solves disad, case outweighs disad, etc.).

Counterplans:

Counterplans are cool unless you tell me otherwise. To win the counterplan, you probably need to be winning some net benefit and/or competitiveness argument. I like some comparative analysis discussions like counterplan uniquely solves, aff solvency deficit, aff solvency advocate or mechanism not key, etc.

Kritiks:

Disregarding my knowledge, you should always assume you know your literature better than me or that I am unfamiliar with it. In high school, I read Technocracy, Myth of Model Minority, Cap, Neolib, and Security. Planless Affs I read included a Disaster Cap and a Baudrillard one. Please give me an overview for the K (try not to make it too long, like minutes on end long, because you might as well do the line-by-line at that point). I like clear explanations and warrants, like pulling specific lines from the evidence or generating links off Aff ev. There should be a discussion of how the K functions in the round, probably some framework debate, and an alt explanation (or the linear disad explanation). Be mindful of the floating PIKs.

Perms:

Be specific. For example, I think that saying “Perm do both” isn’t enough. There should probably be a solvency discussion. The severance, advocacy, intrinsic, etc. could go on the top level, and/or the theory page.

Affs:

I am usually pretty good with any format. If it is performance, a planless affirmative, and/or K aff, I would prefer you give me a ROB and/or ROJ. Take clear stances and advocacies, and contextualize them. You should pull warrants and provide explanations of the arguments and the method/reps/advocacy, etc.

Otherwise...

Ask questions.

Grapevine High School '26

Aaron Luo

I do policy and LD at Grapevine. I don't really care what you read and I'll do my best to understand it (if in doubt please ask), I usually go for LARP (policy) but will vote on anything.

Tech >>> Truth

I prefer speechdrop, but put me on your email chain if you can't. My email address is luo1luo10@gmail.com.

If you play league of legends, show me your opgg and I'll bump your speeks a bit based on your rank lol.

Prefs

1 - Policy (CP, DAs, plans)

2- Trad LD (good for it just boring),

2/3 - Ks (Not really educated on K literature but they are fun rounds and I can vote on it for sure and I prefer them over Trad LD rounds)

3 - Trix/Phil, Non Topical K-affs, Ks, Frivolous theory (no)

---I would prefer a plan if you are on aff and CPs and DAs instead of trad LD but if that's your only case don't worry, I won't hold it against you. It will just be a disadvantage for you if your opponent can get through more of their stuff through spreading and more progressive arguments---

SPEEKS

I give pretty good speaks - If it's a good debate i'll most likely give y'all both 30s.

-The more clash the higher yall's speaks will be

Speed

-Speed is fine as long as you send analytics and cards and remain somewhat clear

**please send analytics for rebuttal speeches - allows your opponent to better clash with your arguments and helps me avoid missing your arguments and makes my decision easier**

flex prep is good but don't use it to make arguments clarifying questions only please - also your opponent should send you the analytics they used so you shouldn't need to use it that much even if they spread

Paradigm

Generally, I like you to tell me how I vote.

I debates where people pull out warrants from cards and I like the last speaker to explain why the other side loses and they win. Think offense. I like debaters who demonstrate their intelligence by understanding their arguments.

I can be convinced to be a policy maker with some exceptions. Default mode of policy making is policy advantages weighed against risks of disadvantages and consideration given for counterplans and possible solvency deficits. Multiple CPs can be irritating but also at times strategic. Obviously advantage CPs can be an exception.

Quickly worded "Do both" or "Do plan and K" sometimes leave me confused as to what the world of the perm really looks like. Take the time to frame your perm for me clearly. How does it take out CP/K? How does it interact with the link to any net benefit? On the negative, hold the affirmative to clearer explanations of how the perm functions. Confusion for me usually breaks negative in the presence of a net benefit.

I like comparisons of the quality of evidence compared to the other team. Not just qualifications, but unanswered warrants in the evidence. Take the time to pull warrants out of the cards and explain them. Explain why your evidence and warrants should be preferred.

I also like you to take the time to explain specifically how you think you win. Put the whole round together in a quick "story." How do you want me to view it? Compare it the other team's "story." Tell me how this is taken out and that outweighs this. It makes it easier for me to frame your approach as I decide. Give me some "big picture analysis." Don't just get mired down in line by line. I don't need 4 minutes of overview or "canned" overviews. Make specific to what is occurring in this debate round. Otherwise, it's boring.

Please collapse in the 2NR - if you are going for T go for all 6 minutes in the 2NR, don't go for multiple worlds, CP + DAs, Case + DA, or just the CP are my favorite. Going for just the DA without any case is a risky move and you should explain how your DA outweighs or turns the case.

Even if you lose, don't be too sad; if it was a good debate you should be getting high speeks from me

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD.

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow directly off of the doc but if I can't understand you while spreading, you'll lose speaker points.

Preferences

1 - CP/DA/Advantages

2 - T, Theory (the good kind)

BE ADVISED. RUNNING A K OR NON-T AFF WILL LIKELY RESULT IN BEING VOTED DOWN.

3 - Kritiks

4 - Non-T Affs, Tricks (if the opponent can't understand them, neither will I), Friv Theory, Performance/Identity K's, Spikes

Timing

10-15 second grace period at the end of the speech if you're in the middle of a sentence. Don't abuse this.

PLEASE USE STOPWATCHES. PLEASE LET ME KEEP TIME AND DO NOT INTERRUPT THE OTHER TEAM WITH AN ALARM OR TELLING ME THEY'RE OVER TIME.

Speaker Points:

30: Perfection

28-29: Great with some notes

26-27: Needs significant work

25: Offensive comments were made

Add me to your email chain! mathison.debate@gmail.com or add me on your speech drop.

Hey! So Excited to hear what you have to say.

I think anyone who tackles debate is a winner but alas I have to decide on a single winner today.

Do your best, Speak clearly and NOOOO spreading!

Please add me to the email chain smmilam@outlook.com

Sonja

Hi, I'm Ayne. I'm a senior who debates for Greenhill.

Email chain: parka24@greenhill.org or speech drop.

TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR, give me one argument to vote for and tell me WHY, please be clear!

Slow down for analytics especially if you don't send them!!!

I'm not the most comfortable evaluating theory or Ks but I will if I have to - read at your own discretion. Don't be mean.

Bye :) see u in round

Plano West ‘26

Junior at Plano West and been doing LD for about a year and a half on TOC, TFA, UIL, nats circuit. I’ve basically done every type of argumentation present in LD so do what you do best.

My email is angelribo7@protonmail.com but I prefer speechdrop. It's impossible to be 100% free of bias, but I will vote on anything as long as you are winning the flow.

I evaluate based off the flow but I can be convinced by big picture weighing as long you aren’t making technical concessions.

Comfort Level

(least to most comfortable)

K

KvK and KvLARP is what I'm most comfortable with. K tricks are good, link you lose, floating piks, etc. Not a fan of K uplayers theory but I appreciate creative answers and cross applications of the K.

Note on high theory: if it has a policy camp backfile i probably know it pretty well. Psycho, complex cap, and other strange Ks are good but it’s my expectation that you will cement my understanding by the 6th minute of the 2NR.

<--------x>

identity and performance

Have actual solvency. T-FW is probably true but can be convinced otherwise. Fairness is not an impact, it’s an internal link.

<--------x>

Common Phil (kant etc.)

I love framework debate. Know your syllogism. I like calc indicts. SIGNPOST when reading framework especially analytics and maybe don’t go full speed. Most comfy with kant, phil ncs, enlightenment, and maybe levinas.

<----x---->

Complex Phil

A lot of debaters at my school read phil (Ryan Chang). My experience is based on that and the few times I’ve read it myself, but I would stay away and tend to over explain if you’re going to read it.

LARP

I started here and still enjoy it. SL Affs are great, util debates are good. Be clear with link chains and please weigh impacts; without judge instruction LARP gets hard to judge.

<-----x--->

Tricks

I’ve done TT, eval, PnP tricks, some paradoxes, etc. As long as they are intuitive and warranted I can definitely flow + understand. In trick v trick weigh between them please.

<--x------>

T

Probably the only argument that I think is just true but that doesn’t mean i won't vote against it. 9/10 times you need a counterinterp and K tricks / disads / impact turns on the interp NEED to be warranted and extended properly.

<------x-->

Theory

Good for 1 or 2 shells. Default to spirit>text yes rvis. I will not vote on a shell the debater doesn’t directly violate. Norming is my favorite thing to hear in the 2nr.

<-----x--->

PF

I personally think that we need to put the “public” back in “Public Forum.” I’ll vote on anything and I'll evaluate off the flow. Theory is okay, just read the LD section for that. I think you don't have enough time to run something like a K or dense FW, but I won't go out of my way to vote you down for that.

Speed

No limit on speed. Send docs. Bonus speaks for rebuttal docs. I am unconfident in my ability to flow a fast theory 2NR, so give clear voters or go slow. Clear three times before i stop flowing. If i give a bad decision and my justification is that you were unintelligible, please just shut up and accept it.

Good luck!

CX Philosophy

As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes two framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round. In regards to speed, I would say I am more comfortable with mid level speed, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, if I am part of the email chain/Speechdrop then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision. I am good with CPs, DAs, Ks, and pretty much any other style of argument as long as it is run properly. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

LD Philosophy

I'm up for about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me I will vote almost exclusively on framework and impacts. Not a big fan of speed at all. If you are spreading then you aren't trying to win my ballot. If I can't follow you then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

I am a parent judge. Please be respectful and clear in your presentation. Good luck!

armadaverae@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Please use a loud voice. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch. I'll say clear three times before I stop flowing.

Please make sure Ks are clear- especially links, alts, and ROB. I'm not the best judge for performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse and spec DTD/DTA.

Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. Connect it back to the framework. I won't evaluate arguments without extensions.

Have your cases ready!!

If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)

I am a parent judge with little judging and debate experience.

Please no spreading. Talk at a normal speed and speak CLEARLY

I am a parent judge. While I've never participated in the high school debate, I bring over 15 years of experience in cancer research and a career as a seasoned biology professor at a premier college. My familiarity with presenting and evaluating complex arguments has given me a keen sense of logic and reason. What I am looking for in your debate are 1. Methodical Approach: Your piece should be a well-drafted "story". Present your arguments in a well-thought-out manner. I prefer a structured layout with layers of evidence that build upon each other. 2. Clear Thought Process: It’s not just about the conclusion you reach, but the journey you take to get there. Ensure your line of reasoning is clear, concise, and easy to follow - "less is more". 3. Organization: The way you structure your arguments matters. A cohesive flow will always score higher in my book.

In terms of style, I value the following: 1. Calmness Over Aggressiveness: An argument’s strength isn’t in its volume. I find that a loud and aggressive style detracts from the content. Instead, a calm, composed delivery with instances of passion is what catches my attention. 2. Evidence-driven: A loud voice without strong evidence will only weaken your argument in my eyes. Back your points with solid evidence.

Debate is a form of art of communication. You are communicating not only with your opponents but more importantly with your audience. In my view, the debate is not about being right (because there is no right or wrong answer for any debate topic), but about persuading effectively. Your ability to articulate your argument, communicate clear logic, and substantiate it with evidence is the key. I look forward to evaluating your performance and connecting with you based on the principles of clarity, organization, and logical reasoning.