experience debating national circuit policy and public forum.

arguments are not arguments without warrants.

if all debaters in the round express a reasonable preference they would like me to adopt prior to judging the debate, let me know and I will adopt it; judge adaptation can go both ways.

speaker points are entirely subjective and arbitrary, and are likely mostly based on what side of the bed I woke up on (anybody who says otherwise is likely kidding themselves, or taking their jobs a little too seriously).

I am very expressive, it is really obvious when i'm vibing with an argument or when i'm frustrated with an argument. I think this is a positive in a judge, but apparently some find it frustrating, if you're sensitive about getting mild, general, mid-round feedback about your arguments in the form of facial expressions or nods, you should probably strike me.

I don't really understand why debaters demand analytics in the speech doc. The speech doc is for evidence, you are still supposed to flow your opponents speech. So if they ask for analytics you can just say no.

flowing:

Debate is a communicative activity and if you cannot adequately communicate to me why you win a round i'm not going to mine through the flow to justify voting for you. you have to win the round, not rely on me to win it for you in my RFD.

Take it down a couple notches speedwise, I've started to have difficulty keeping up in tech rounds. Remember to pause, differentiate pace between tags/card-text, and slow down on analytics.

In terms of rate of delivery (spreading), I will yell "clear" once if I do not understand you. If you do not become clear after that, I stop flowing your speech.

progressive argumentation:

the only rule that isn't up for debate is speech times, and that's just because I don't want to be here longer than I have to.

i'd characterize myself as a progressive judge. I was pretty deep into postmodern Ks when I debated and have grown to become highly appreciative of good theory debates. Doesn't matter how big your school is or how much resources your program has, you should be prepared to defend the rules if you want to enforce them in round. If you think a rule is good and is something we should stick to, you should be prepared to defend it. You should also be prepared to defend your representations and ideology that underlies your arguments.

literate enough about most K-literature to know when you are bastardizing your evidence, but non-interventionist enough to not care.

i find the insularity with regards to particular jargon in theory debates to be pretty exhausting, just because a team does not say the magic words "counter-interpretation" does not mean they do not have one. I judge the arguments by how they are argued, not how they are labeled.

evidence:

put simply: i don't care.

I judge based on what I hear. This means: I won't call for evidence, I don't care if your evidence is in "card" form, I don't want to be on the email chain, and generally care more about what your argument is than what your evidence says. Debate (especially PF) is about communication, and if your communicative strategy is dependent on me flowing your speech doc, strike me or adapt.

I don't care about evidence ethics, but am willing to begrudgingly vote on a well-explained argument as to why I should care.

Contact info: avejacksond@gmail.com

Background: I competed for Okoboji (IA) and was at the TOC '13 in LD. I also debated policy in college the following year. I coached from 2014-2019 for Poly Prep (NY). I rejoined the activity again in 2023 as an assistant debate coach at Johnston (IA) & adjunct LD coach at Lake Highland Prep (FL).

LD

General: Debate rounds are about students so intervention should be minimized. I believe that my role in rounds is to be an educator, however, students should contextualize what that my obligation as a judge is. I default comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Slow down for interps and plan texts. I will say clear as many times as needed. Signpost and add me to your email chain, please.

Pref Shortcut

K: 1

High theory: 1

T/Theory: 2

LARP: 1/2

Tricks: 2/3

K: I really like K debate. I have trouble pulling the trigger on links of omission. Performative offensive should be linked to a method that you can defend. The alt is an advocacy and the neg should defend it as such. Knowing lit beyond tags = higher speaks. Please challenge my view of debate. I like learning in rounds.

Framework: 2013 LD was tricks, theory, and framework debate. I dislike blippy, unwarranted 'offense'. However, I really believe that good, deep phil debate is persuasive and underutilized on most topics. Most framework/phil heavy affs don't dig into literature deep enough to substantively respond to general K links and turns.

LARP: Big fan but don't assume I've read all hyper-specific topic knowledge.

Theory/T: Great, please warrant extensions and signpost. "Converse of their interp" is not a counter-interp.

Disclosure: Not really going to vote on disclosure theory unless you specifically warrant why their specific position should have been disclosed. If they are running a position relatively predictable, it is unlikely I will pull the trigger on disclosure theory.

Speaks: Make some jokes and be chill with your opponent. In-round strategy dictates range. I average 28.3-28.8.

Other thoughts: Plans/CPs should have solvency advocates. Talking over your opponent will harm speaks. Write down interps before extemping theory. When you extend offense, you need to weigh. Card clipping is an auto L25.

PF

I am a flow judge. Offense should be extended in summary and the second rebuttal doesn't necessarily need to frontline what was said in first rebuttal (but in some cases, it definitely helps). Weighing in Summary and FF is key. I'll steal this line from my favorite judge, Thomas Mayes, "My ballot is like a piece of electricity, it takes the path of least resistance." I have a hard time voting on disclosure theory in PF. Have fun and be nice.

This version of my paradigm is a total rewrite of my previous paradigm, an archived version can be found here. This does not represent a change in opinions but updating for clarity and structure.

i. Affiliations

Iowa City West High School (2011-2017, 2023-present): Coach/Judge. I also debated for 3 years for ICW in high school

Hawken School, OH (2021-2022): Judge

ii. About

I have been doing policy debate since 2011 and that is the format I am most familiar with and actually coach. However, I also have judged just about every other debate/speech format*. I would like to be added to the email chain: lang901@gmail.com and iowacitywestdebatedocs@gmail.com. I have both a BA in political science and a J.D. as well as a license to practice law in 2 states (Iowa and Ohio [Inactive]).** I am fairly tabula rasa and have voted in the past on the entire range of arguments. I have hopefully organized this in a readable manner. Let me know if you have any questions if not.

I. OVERVIEW

Do what you want to do. Do it well and I will probably vote for you. Esoteric Ks will require a bit more explanation but I will do my best to meet you in the middle. Tech over Truth but the truth is pretty persuasive. Generally, unless instructed otherwise, I will vote on based on the path of least resistance. This means the less I have to resolve in your favor, the more likely I am to vote for you. I will judge the debate you had in front of me. I will not intervene/insert my own opinions/knowledge unless absolutely necessary as tab will get mad at me if I take an hour to make a decision. I may comment on things in the RFD/oral critique after the round but generally unless noted, it didn't affect the outcome.

This is technically a nitpick but I'm going to put it here anyway.Citations to legal texts/court opinions have a very specific format. It's not hard to learn. Please use it in your cites when relevant, especially this year as the topic is incredibly legal-technicalities oriented. I will give you bonus points if I notice that your cites are in the correct format.

II. Line by Line(With very few caveats, this section is mostly advisory. Do not overadapt. If it's not clear to you what's advisory and what isn't, feel free to ask before the round)

a. Disadvantages- They exist. You should read them if you want. Subject to the caveat in supra note 2, I don't really have any ideological hang ups about disadvantages. I would like them to be specific but I recognize that that's not always possible. Try to have real links to an actual affirmative, not just the entire concept of the year's topic.

b. Counterplans- I will vote off the counterplan text said out loud during the debate. You should have an actual solvency advocate for your counterplan. Counterplans without a solvency advocate are just a sentence and I will judge them accordingly. If the aff doesn't point this out, I won't vote you down but that means this is something aff's should be on the lookout for.

c. Kritiks- I am familiar with core kritiks (e.g. Cap, Security, SetCol, etc.). I am also familiar with ableism kritiks and a lot of the literature in that area. You shouldn't run into any problems running those in front of me. Virilio notwithstanding, if your K is named after a specific person, I am more than likely unfamiliar with it. I will try to meet you where you are but there are definitely ways you can make that easier. In those instances, err on the side of over-explanation.

d. T- I don't particularly love the tactical deployment of T arguments. I'm not advocating RVIs or anything but keep that in mind while crafting your 1NC. I will evaluate the T debate on the basis you tell me to (i.e. Competing Interp vs. Reasonability). The interp and violation debates are just as important as the standards/impact debate on T***.

e. FW- I separate FW from T only really because I learned them separately as a debater. While I generally think having a stable locus for the debate is good and that locus should be the resolution, I am sympathetic to many anti-FW arguments. If you are an anti-FW team, please try to have an interpretation of the debate round that is more than just "vote for us". I roll my eyes a bit when I see "The Role of the Ballot/Judge is to vote for the team that does [object of the k]" in a speech doc. At that point just come out and say the ROB/J is to vote for you. That is at least a bit more honest.

f. Theory-

(1). 3+ is where condo gets bad and you have to ask for judge kick.

(2.)Judge kick is also probably bad, I'm not interested in doing historical revisionism to your 2NR. If you go for a counterplan, I'm judging the counterplan.

(3). If debatevision had not met an untimely end (RIP), I would link a decade-old GDI(?) lecture here about why international fiat is bad. But you'll just have to take my word for it.

(4). I have a high-ish bar for reject the team theory. If you want me to do so, it better be 3+ minutes of the 2xR. I am much more lenient on RtA framing and if used tactically, could have the same effect as RtT (i.e. rejecting the counterplan the 2NR went for).

g. Cross-Ex- This gets its own section because it's a critical part of the debate. Avoid clarification questions about cards read. These should be eliminated by flowing the actual speech rather than just writing down everything in the speech doc. Cross-ex is about establishing links and forwarding your arguments. Do that instead of asking questions you should already know the answer to. Also, if you're not going maverick, CX time is time for questions. If you don't have questions, then either prep time or the next speech starts.

III. Debate Senior Citizen Yells at Clouds (you can largely skip this section if you have limited pre-round prep time)

(I've been in and out of the community over the past 14 years so these are my extraneous thoughts about norms that have developed in the past decade.)

a. Why are cards highlighted so badly now? If you're card consists of 5 sentences, composed a word at a time, across 25 paragraphs, not only is that bordering on academic dishonesty, your points may suffer. If you're doing it for time reasons, I would suggest either getting faster or reading less.

b. Speaking of reading less, I do not like neg strategies that involve 5+ off in the 1NC. If you stand up for the 1NC and a number greater than 10 is in your order, I will be mad. I will still vote for you but regardless of my feelings on the strategy, these strategies place you well behind the starting line in a debate. These strats lead to 1 or more of the following situations: your cards are dangerously under-highlighted, your arguments are dangerously blippy, or you have to reach the upper thresholds of speed and human comprehension but unfortunately I don't type that fast. The first two create a scenario where the debate is incredibly anti-educational. The third creates a situation where you are incredibly unhappy with me at the end of the debate as I only caught, generously, 40% of your arguments. Policy debate should be education first, competition second. But neither of those goals are accomplished in 5+ off strats. Additionally, spending a minute kicking positions at the top of the 2NC is not compelling on a base ethos level.

c. I don't have many hangups on the presentation level of debating. Dress however you want, speak how you want, sit or stand. However one presentation thing I think is good is facing the judge during CX. Facing your opponent during CX is bad on an ethos level, especially if you end up facing entirely away from the judge. I will try to take a central spot in the room to facilitate this as easily as possible.

d. Impact/evidence comparison should happen early and often. Necessary judge intervention happens almost exclusively in scenarios where evidence and especially impact comparison starts in the 2xR. Late breaking debates result in neither you, your points, nor me being happy with the result of that round.

IV. Endnotes

*Note 1: I also coached World Schools but that probably isn't super relevant to this document.

**Note 2: With this in mind, if you're going to go for a really technical argument in either of those areas be sure you really, really know what you're doing. If you don't, and it will be clear if you don't, I will likely be incredibly annoyed for the entirety of the debate. The place this will be the biggest issue is evidence. I read cards and I have noticed an uptick in egregious Tag/Card mismatch. This goes beyond powertagging and borders on straight up dishonesty. In these cases, I have no issue basing my decision on what the card actually says rather than a debater's misrepresentation. For the sake of your speaker points and an efficient RFD after the round, heed this warning.

***Note 3: This year's topic is worded terribly and thus lot of the interp cards I've seen coming out of camp files this year (2024-2025) are downright bad. A random out of context paragraph from the Supreme Court of Montana in a case not about IPR, interpreting part of a statute unrelated to IPR, is not where definitions should come from. There is no intent to define and also not even how courts look to defining things. Affs can and should use this to their advantage.

My name is Colin Coulter and the 23-24 school year is my first year judging and coaching debate. I have no prior experience with debate but have a broad background in public speaking, having delivered speeches to dozens of formal panels, boards, councils, subcommittees, and other bodies over the past 20 years.

I try to follow the NSDA's judging guidelines found here: Judge Training | National Speech & Debate Association (speechanddebate.org). Please take particular note of the videos on how to judge.

Notes on specific events:

Public Forum: I believe that the foundation of debate is reasonable arguments supported by evidence. I appreciate when debaters show me that they have actually read their own original citations. I enjoy debates where I catch myself thinking "they really know what they are talking about." in response to a cross-ex question. Show me that you understand the citations! Please do not gish-gallop me with a long list of poorly-cited sources. Please absolutely avoid giving me the impression that you failed to read the original citation before you clipped the card from the Champion Brief.

I need to be able to track your arguments if I'm going to give you credit for them. Signposting is essential in verbal speech, and I do not keep a rigorous flow. As it says in the video, an argument is not established without at least a warrant and impact, and arguments are given more weight when opponents fail to respond to them. Effective rebuttals are as important as strong arguments.

Dramatic Interpretation: While interpretive events are judged to the best of my ability on their cutting, blocking, and characterization, I believe that depictions of violence against children are inappropriate in much that same manner that scatological or pornographic depictions would be inappropriate.

Using mental illness in your piece is likely problematic. Mental illness is a disability and to constantly portray mentally ill people as violent for points at NSDA events is essentially Mental Illness Minstrel Show. Ask yourself this question: "If I my character's behavior was attributed to race or sexual orientation instead of a disability like mental illness, would I still perform the speech?"

Good luck at Nationals!

I value coherence over speed. The most persuasive team will argue their side has the greatest impact and counterpoint their opponents arguments to demonstrate this.

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com. Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

About me:

I am participating in speech and debate to help you and I learn and develop as members of our community.

My core values are honesty, integrity, and tenacity.

I believe that we all must respect each other, without regard for similarities or differences.

I am holding myself accountable to make this a beneficial experience for everyone involved. I hope you will do the same.

I have a wide variety of life experiences to include serving in the military for over 25 years, teaching at the high school and college level, and currently working for the federal government.

This is my second year participating in speech and debate!

About debate:

One is most effective if they respect others and show it.

Facts are more important than fiction.

Goal is to make it understandable for anyone/everyone.

The goals include to educate, learn, understand, explain, appreciate, and grow.

A public forum should not be a place to embarrass, belittle, demean, deceive, or exclude.

My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is braedon-kirkpatrick@uiowa.edu.

Notes on Speaker Points:

The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.

Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.

I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)

Online Debate:

- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.

- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.

- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.

-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.

The Core:

I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.

For Prefs:

I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.

Specific Stances:

Defaults:

- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds

- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise

- I assume flex prep is A-OK

-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise

-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise

-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise

Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.

K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.

NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.

Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.

Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.

Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.

Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.

LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.

PF and Parly: I have been judging debate since 2016 but I have no personal experience in debate. I teach political science so I am particularly persuaded by arguments that on concrete evidence, specific comparative examples, and empirical information. I especially appreciate emphasizing your strongest points - and using them directly to challenge your opponent's case - and directly challenging the obvious weaknesses of your opponent's case. I am not particularly concerned about technicalities. I will vote on topicality but the argument needs to be very, very clearly non-topical.

LD: I am a lay judge when it comes to LD. I have very little familiarity with the technical dynamics of LD. I do not follow the case on-line, so any questions about the evidence the debaters must point out themselves. I can handle some speed but use extreme speed and I will definitely miss some of the argument. Please do not run topicality arguments unless the Aff case is very, very clearly off topic! I do not need arguments that run to ELE. I will vote on the basis of reasonable consequences.

Pronouns: She/her/hers

Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue.

I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot.

Style: I am one of those judges who responds very negatively to rudeness, disrespect, and offensive language

Speed: I don't like speed. Learning how to talk fast has no post-debate benefit, so I do not support it as a strategy in an educational debate round. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused; either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying.

Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round.

I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round.

Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism.

I also like to hear evidence in the rebuttal. If you are responding with an analytical argument to an argument that has evidence, I need you to do the work of explaining to me why your analytical argument is sufficient to off-set the argument with evidence. You can do this by telling me that sense the argument doesn't make sense/has a fallacy, then it doesn't stand even with evidence. Or you can make an analytical argument about the evidence itself. Otherwise, I am likely going to still prefer the argument with evidence.

Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain.

If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated.

If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked.

If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot.

On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive.

Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech.

Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one.

I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college.

I am not a LD debater, so I have minimal understanding of the theory and technical arguments that exist within LD. You can absolutely still make those arguments, but you need to make sure that you are explaining those terms, otherwise I will be lost and frustrated.

I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)

Hello! I am a former high school debater for Okoboji where I did LD all three years. Currently a high school science teacher and NSDA speech and debate coach for Waukee High School. This is my second year of coaching and judging. I frequently judge LD and IEs.

rowens@waukeeschools.org

DEBATE:

tldr: I flow and should hear clear extensions, turns, and weighing; Speed is fine, but check with your opponents before spreading; be thorough and respectful.

Flow: I will judge based on what I've flowed and what you tell me the voters are. Evidence should be prevalent and should also be clearly linked and explained. Don't just read a card without telling us why it's important. When extending, tell us what you're extending and why. You do not need to reread the entire card during your extension.

Speed: Speaking quickly is fine, but it should not come at the price of your clarity or depth of argument. I prefer not to flow spreading, especially on the local circuit. I will say "slow" or "clear". If myself AND your opponents are not able to keep up, you need to slow and speak clearer. Debate should still be accessible to all, so please check with your opponents on whether they are comfortable with spreading as well.

Weighing: Need to link to your framework; if what you're weighing doesn't match the value/criterion of the round, it won't have much strength.

Theory, Ks, etc: Have limited experience running and responding to these in LD. Generally not preferred in the local circuit. If you make a warranted argument, I will judge it. I will not automatically vote against you for running it, but these are not the preferred main arguments to be run.

Speaks: Generally give speaks between 26-29. Use your time, try to make solid arguments, respond to your opponents, be courteous during the round for higher speaks. Lower speaks if you are rude, make short speeches without addressing all relevant arguments, or are lying.

Pronouns: she / her

Style: I respond negatively to speakers who are rude, inappropriate/disrespectful, and grandstanding (my def = talking just to talk / pontificate).

Background: I have been teaching for 25 years in Iowa and Texas, and I have been Hoover's head debate coach for several years (and judged several years prior to that). I also have legal assistant training; this, too, informs my perspective as a judge.

I teach speech, argumentation, and persuasion daily – same concepts, different venue.

I’m here because I prize lifelong learning, and I find these experiences are fun, rewarding, and add insight into both my classroom teaching and debate coaching. I hope you, too, find these experiences fun and rewarding and that you learn and improve from each interaction… even if you don't win your round. :)

What I look for in a PF round:

I view my role in the round mainly as a trained observer and judge as teams do their work; I prefer teams to time themselves (and report the time) and I will rarely interrupt, direct, or ask for a card. However, I will note called cards and how they are subsequently used. If cards aren’t called or if points are left unchallenged, my assumption is your team agrees to their use – barring fundamentally untrue things ("racism good"). Note also that teams should extend the card’s argument and not just shorthand the author’s name.

Teams should independently, explicitly, at the beginning, address and agree upon how the round should be weighed; if not, my assumption is cost-benefit analysis.

I like roadmaps and prefer clear signposting throughout the round as these features allow all parties to be on the same page.

I can follow moderate speed – especially if it’s because you truly have a lot of strong links and evidence to present -- but if you go so fast that I miss your point, that’s on you. Same if you’re spreading or spending a lot of time talking but not actually saying anything, such as entire rounds spent on agreeing on definitions or other minutia.

Additionally, jargon doesn’t impress me; I spend my days breaking down jargon and complex topics for students, so I expect you to practice this real-world skill as well. Seeing your ability to adapt, contextualize, and show mastery without needing to resort to jargon is key for me.

During cross, ask questions to which you legitimately want answers and don't steamroll your opponents by interjecting so they can’t respond.

In your final focus, I prefer the focus to be on your case -- what are the main voters in the round and why your evidence should be preferred, why your impacts outweigh, why you should win, etc. – instead of your opponent’s case.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

Do not qualify, justify, or explain before or after you speak. This is the performance. I am the judge. Impress me.

All movements (Feet, hands, body, eyes) should have a purpose.

Interps should have arcs and PAs should have thesis statements.

PF - I have been judging PF for around 7 years now. I am a judge that listens for Impacts on why your Impacts outweigh others. I am not a huge fan of speed. I am more concerned with the content of the speech rather than the amount of information given. I do understand the PF jargon. It is up to you to persuade me to vote for your side. I am not a huge fan of using FW and definitions as a weighing mechanism but will consider it if the other arguments are well balanced. Make sure to clearly state your Impacts and how these impacts link to the resolution.

Congress - I am looking for you to know the Robert's Rules of Order as well as seeing you participating in the debate by asking questions. In terms of your speech, I would like to hear a clear structure for your speeches. I want to hear the impacts of your points and I want you to be very familiar with your speeches as well. Make sure to bring up new arguments when a bill has been debated for awhile. If you speak later in the session, I want to hear clash with other representatives/senators. I also want to hear new information if you are representing the same point as someone who has spoken previously. I also track recency so I will note if a PO may miss a recency order. Make sure to maintain your professionalism during cross and during your speech. I will knock down a speaker if I feel they are being too aggressive during their speech or their cross.

LD - I do not have much experience judging LD currently. Please focus on argumentation and impacts rather than the jargon that goes along with LD. Tricks, theory, etc. will not work with me. Also, speed is discouraged during your speeches. Please make sure I can follow your supporting evidence and arguments. I am familiar with PF and judging PF.

Hi, I'm Quincy. I’m an assistant coach at Iowa City West, I am in college at the University of Iowa, I debated for 2 years and I have been judging LD for 4 years, PF for 3 years and speech events for 2 years. For the sake of transparency, I’ve only judged 4-5 bid tournaments, but again, I’ve been around the block.

Email Chain Format:

Tournament Name: School Name (Aff) vs. School Name (Neg)

My email: qat1@rice.edu.
Share a couple of minutes before round. My email has a spam blocker, so it WILL take at least 3 minutes before I receive any email you send.

1. Spreading: If I cannot understand you, I will say 'clear'. I expect to be on the e-mail chain. If I have to say ‘clear’ more than twice, I will stop flowing until your you achieve clarity again.

2. Speaks:

a) Strategy: Debate is an intellectual battle. Strategy shows that you are a good debater. Creativity in your arguments shows ingenuity, which will be rewarded. Unorthodox standards or contentions are encouraged.

b) Common Courtesy: Some simple things affect this, like whether or not you ask to see if your opponent is ready before a speech or before CX. Signposting is always good. Off-time road map, etc. DBAA- don’t be a jerk.

c) Presentation: This has everything to do with how you carry yourself. Wealth can’t buy class. You can look more presentable with a $3 t-shirt than in a rumpled $500 suit.

I will award speaker points based on these factors, and debaters that exhibit a good combination of both of these will be the only ones whom I will award 30 speaks. I will typically award 27-29 or so.

3. Norms Setting: I will harshly punish prejudice (ableism, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.), evidence ethics violations, and other tomfoolery. I reserve the right to unilaterally drop you from the round if the violation is egregious enough. On the flip side, frivolous IVIs will not convince me.

Don't steal prep time, don't stall, and have your evidence and sources on hand in case your opponent asks about them.

4. Ks: I will give VERY low speaks if you run an identity K(e.g, afropess, queerpess, etc.) that doesn’t apply to you (e.g. afropess but you aren’t black).

5. tech > truth. Obviously. If you win K > theory, I’ll vote on that. If you do the opposite, I’ll vote on that too.

Lastly, if you have questions, or if anything is unclear, don't hesitate to ask. However, you should wait until your opponent is present to ask questions.

Good luck, and may the best debater win!

P.S. +0.1 speaks if you tastefully roast any (current) IC West Debater.

Badgerland Only: online tournaments often have audio issues. Please ensure your environment is clear of ambient noise. I’d hate to vote incorrectly because of audio interruptions.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.