First Years:
I'll listen to anything as long as you show a good understanding of the argument. I will focus more on speaking ability and clash as well as your ability to use logic and reason instead of relying on the evidence. I don't enjoy listening to T and Framework if it's poorly explained, badly organized, and you don't understand what you're arguing. PLEASE sign post and give roadmaps before your speech and keep your own time.

Amelia Boor

Eisenhower High School

2 years experience in Policy Debate

Hello! I am Amelia Boor. I am a current High School debater at Eisenhower High School, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say about this year's topic.

I am someone who enjoys being able to listen and understand what you are talking about. I want to know that you have a firm understanding of the topic you are speaking of and the issues you are going to resolve.

I am comfortable with all speeds of debate, however I would rather be able to know that you understand all of the information rather than have mass amounts of that information sped through.

Flowing is something that I will personally do within all of the rounds that I judge, and I encourage others to do so as well. I also encourage debaters to keep track of and time their rounds and their opponents.

I would like to be included in the sharing of all evidence and information to ensure that it is being done well and smoothly.

Being able to listen to how you speak and recognize the confidence within your voice and your body language is a good indication as to how well you know your topic, I would like to see it integrated into how you debate.

I have no preferences on arguments run as long as you can articulate your point.

I will count you off if you are rude to your teammate and/or the opposing team.

Jadon Conklin, Eisenhower Highschool, Second Year Debater

I generally fall under the Games Player Archtype, meaning that I will hear any and all arguements you can back up with evidence. I will be flowing each round, and will in most curcumstances vote entirely on the flow. There is a major exception to this however, and that is unsportsmenlike behavior. If a team is being disrespectful, they are unlikely to recieve my vote as a judge, so please keep all behavior civil and not overly rude or aggressive.

I would like to be included in all Speechdrops or Email Chains, both for the sake of flowing and for the sake of best evidence practices.

No new Off Case in the 2NC, it's unfair to the AFF to try and only answer arguements with rebuttal time, and leads to very unconstructive debate.

No Open Cross Examination under any circumstances.

Have fun!

Sincerely Jadon Conklin.

FOR POLICY DEBATE:

I approach debate rounds as a presentation on whether or not to take a particular course of action. I'll judge in favor of the more convincing presentation, even though they may not have an air-tight case.

I prefer not to judge K, as they are often difficult for all involved to parse. If you want to run a K, make it clear and concise, and provide specific links to the Aff. I also dislike counterplans, as I see the Neg as speaking directly against the course of action suggested by the Aff.

Specific links and clear "bright lines" are most convincing, while vague or generalized statements will likely make me question the validity of your entire argument.

DO NOT, under any circumstances, insult or demean your opponent(s). That may be how "real" debates go, but your goal here is to convince me of the validity of your course of action. Maintain professionalism while you're in the round.

FOR LD DEBATE:

I'm primarily familiar with policy debate, from what I understand LD is much more about moral arguments. As such, my own moral standards are relevant, even though I will try not to judge based on them.

I consider myself an 'act utilitarian,' meaning I judge the morality of an action based on its consequences, and prioritize maximizing the most good for the most people. In the classic 'trolley problem,' for example, I view it as morally good to kill one person to save 5, and I view abstaining from making a choice as a choice in and of itself. That is, I view choosing not to kill the one person as the same morally as choosing to kill the other 5.

That said, you do not have to play by this framework, if you provide sufficient grounding for your stance and arguments. If you argue from some diametrically opposed moral perspective, but do so in a consistent and well-thought-out manner, I will probably still disagree but won't judge against you for it. I simply provide this so that you know where I start the round.

***I'm adding this mid-tournament because I'm getting annoyed. DO NOT run cards or arguments that state a moral framework's inability to predict the future is a reason to vote against it. NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. It doesn't matter what morality you approach the world with, there will always be times when you can't accurately predict outcomes. This line of reasoning is bad, and I will vote against it.***

FOR ALL NON-PERFORMANCE EVENTS:

Do not try to pull the wool over my eyes. I know you're stressed and under time pressure for many events, but that doesn't excuse lies or fabrications. If you think something is true, try to back it up. If you tell me something I know not to be true, I will count it against you, and I will tell you so. Considering I have the ability to look it up myself before I submit my decisions, I strongly suggest you back up your important claims and responses with evidence. I won't pretend to be the smartest person in the room, but I know enough to double-check things I doubt.

I did high school debate and forensics ten years ago, was briefly an assistant coach. I mainly focused on debate.

Debate: Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.

Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.

Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.

Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.

LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it.

Try not to curse unnecessarily, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.

Be polite and have fun!

As a judge, I am to objectively evaluate the arguments presented to me, by the standards presented to me in round to make my decision and see who has most effectively proven their case. I will be weighing based on the quality of arguments, evidence, and logical reasoning; I keep personal biases and preferences out of the debate world. I'm an open policy debater and am pretty flexible and am okay with about any speed as long as you can be clear and articulated. Roadmaps, Signposting, and Eye Contact are all important factors of a debate and go into consideration when giving speaker points.

Burden of Proof-the aff has the burden to present a compelling case that affirms the resolution, is better than the squo, and as the Neg it's your team's job to refute the aff's case and show me why I should prefer your case.

Argumentation- I will assess the strengths of the arguments presented by each team; looking for a clear, logical, and well-structured case and how you can support your contentions. You tell me and justify the quality of evidence, relevance, and how you incorporate it into the debate.

Clash- I love it! Very important to debate and the whole reason we're here! I'm looking for debaters who will engage with each other's points and directly address the issues of the debate.

Voting Issues- You should explicitly identify the reasons to vote for your side, and have evidence to back you up. Tell mewhy you deserve the vote.

Topicality-if you're going to bring it up it better be justified, have evidence to back it up, and you can tell me as the judge why it's important to me in the debate world to vote on T. If by your last speech, your the Neg and you still are going for T; you should be 100% in. T is important in the debate world and we're here for an educational and interesting debate. I want to see that.

K's- ew. If you're going to bring up a K it should be justified and you better understand it; I don't appreciate wasting a round away to Kritik's and theory in general. I believe there is always a time for those arguments, be able to identify when those times are. And PLEASE if you're going to bring it up; have the evidence with it.

I come into the debate as a neutral party and I want you guys to tell me what I should believe and why I should believe it. I will follow the rules but it's also imperative that you can call each other out and make those arguments for yourself. If there is any kind of ill-mannered comments or statements about someone based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual/gender orientation; I will immediately dock your speaker points and it could cost you the debate. The debate world is heavily reliant on logic and analytical analysis, but ethics are still an important part that comes into play and I should see them represented.

Stock Issues

current second year debater at Eisenhower high school

She/her

DON'T BE A BULLY.

I will only flow cards that are signposted and tagged clearly

I will not flow cards that I cannot hear you read. I should not have to rely on files to understand your evidence.

Line by line is good in rebuttals but don't forget to analyze it for me and tell me why you win on each argument.

My default framework is policy maker unless you specifically tell me otherwise.

riley ney

they/them

newton hs '25 (NATO, Inequality)

q's & chains: rneydebate@gmail.com

you don't need to call me "judge", Riley is fine!

If you have any questions, be sure to lmk!

FOR NOVICES ---------------

Enjoy yourself but more importantly, BE YOURSELF! I am much less likely to reward you both in speaks and overall if all I'm hearing is a recycling of your coaches/teammates' words rather than your own analysis and thinking

I don't have any real preferences to what arguments you read as long as you understand them to an extent (warranting out your ev, impact comparison in the rebuttals, etc.) , but just some general notes:

-- tech>truth, but minor tech drops don't decide an argument

-- open cx is fine

-- Speed can be whatever you are comfortable with, but don't count on me flowing off the doc

-- Frame the debate in the 2R. It's cliche but you should try to write the ballot for me

But most importantly, debate is meant to be an educational activity and an inclusive community, there is no excuse for discriminatory language/slurs, unnecessary aggression, being condescending, etc. I won't hesitate to drop speaks or the team depending on the circumstances

At the end of the day, its nov debate and its not that deep, so as long as you walk away understanding more than you did at the start, you've succeeded in one way or another.

Top Level ---

When evaluating a round, I will collapse down to the warranted voting issues and compare them based on 2R instruction. I think the "path of least resistance" approach to judging is a farce and not fair to the effort that most debaters put into their work, so I will always look for an out for both teams. With that said, the work I put into the ballot is proportional to the work you put into the round, and a lack of direction by the 2R might leave you frustrated with the rfd.

4th Year Debater at Andover High School

I was a high school debater and current assistant coach with Eisenhower debate. Plenty of policy debate experience, and I am always up to date on current topics. Still, I want to see your unique and ridiculous plans.

I am a games player who favors more creative ideas or arguments; anything is good in my book. Victory at all costs is my motto when it comes to debate.

I love aggressive rounds. Every argument is on the table as long as you can defend it.

I would prefer to see your speeches in some way to judge the flow. I would like to have a roadmap if you want me to consider it in the best possible way.

Email: jogle@goddardusd.com

Debate:

Experience - I am a former debate competitor and current coach. I have a degree in history with a political science minor. Treat me like a flay judge.

I will do my best to flow your speeches, but I have slight hearing damage so please do not spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't agree with what you've said.

Evidence - I prefer speechdrop, but if you are using an email chain, send it benjamin.ristow@staff.usd305.com. Please upload/send your evidence before your speech starts. That makes it a lot easier for me to follow what you're saying.

Paradigm - Please be respectful to me and to each other. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want, but make sure you have good evidence and/or solid logic/reasoning. I prefer a few strong, well-explained arguments over a big pile of cards that you dumped into your speeches.

If you drop big arguments, I will generally assume that you are conceding them, but I prefer good argumentation over "Aha, they dropped one obscure piece of evidence so they lose the round, gotcha!"

The debate shouldn't be a card reading contest, I want to see more analysis and refutation. Please engage with the material that you are reading.

POLICY/CX DEBATE SPECIFIC:

I don't like new arguments in the rebuttals, and you shouldn't read any new evidence in the 2NR/2AR.

I really want the 2NR and 2AR to tell me their stories. They should write the ballot for me. I appreciate impact calculus, I appreciate clear argument analysis.

Style - I think that persuasiveness matters- especially in CX and rebuttals. Debate is a communication activity.

Professionalism also matters to me. There are boundaries to the way you should interact with your opponents. This includes abusive or personally attacking language, attitude, and tone. At a minimum, it will cost you speaker ranks and points. I don't like offensive language (f***, racial slurs, etc.), and I don't find them less offensive in the context of critical arguments.

When everyone is in the room, I want to start the debate. I am not a fan of everyone arriving, asking me some clarifying questions, disclosing arguments to each other, and then taking another 10-20 minutes before we begin.

Prep time - I kind of despise prep time thieves. If you say "end prep," and then continue typing, that's still using prep. I will be reasonable about evidence sharing time, in terms of moving the files between teams, but sharing it with your partner is part of your prep. You need to be reasonable here too. Again, this will affect speaker points and ranks.

CX - Open CX is fine IF EVERYONE AGREES TO IT. Otherwise I expect it to be closed. Ask each other before the round starts. If one partner does all the asking and answering during open CX, that debater is sending a pretty important, negative message to me about how much their colleague is valued.

Hi! My name is Madi Ryan. I am a policy debater for Mulvane High School. Several of my partners and I have won medals. Quick overview of my preferences:

• I do not like people who spread, I have an audio processing issue. If you spread, it will make it difficult for me to flow correctly which may result in confusion and a undeserved loss.
• Not fond of Kritiks. To me, they're an easy cop out. I'd rather you present disads and genuine arguments. Speed K's in the matter of slowness when the competitors are novice are not going to get you points with me.
• Big fancy debate terms don't make you sound smarter.
• Be respectful before, during, and after. Not only to me as judge, but your competitors.
• Always be aware of current events, for aff and neg. Cross ex will be your time to bring it up.
• ALWAYS be respectful in cross ex. If you have to talk over one and other that's fine, but, don't bring in personal attacks. Personal attacks will get you an immediate loss.
• Crapetbombing (Throwing out random facts in cross ex to confuse the other person) is silly. Don't. Just don't. It's only gonna hurt you.
• Extinction cards have my heart. Only run them if you know 100% what you're talking about.
• Critical affs are hard to judge and I just don't prefer them.
• I don't LOVE counterplans, but, make sure to always follow them up and please don't forget about them if you've already committed. That's a drop and may have you closer to a loss.

Overall, I wish you luck! Have fun debating <3!!

Don't take the fun out of debate. Talk in a manner that you can be understood, I shouldn't have to rely on files to follow along. I don't tolerate hate whatsoever.

As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!