I am a comms judge, but I care more about the persuasiveness of your argument.

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

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

LD:

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

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

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

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

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

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

PF:

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

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

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

Please please please collapse.

Please give me explicitly voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

Policy:

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

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

I am cool with plans, counter plans and disadvantages

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

Please please please collapse

Please give me explicit voters

Please actually extend your case and give me specific card extensions

______

Do what you do best and I will keep up

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

Email: Andrus.dukers@gmail.com

Background:

Did Policy in HS, Top 45 at NSDA but I have done every type of debate event.

TL;DR: professionalism l doesn’t exist, swearing is fine as long as you aren’t cussing out your opponent. I’ll vote for everything except impact turns on structural violence

General Stuff

existential impacts are cringe imo

if you don’t like something about my paradigm then read a theory shell and then if your oppenents agree to it then I’ll make the changes y’all want to my paradigm for that round.

my name is Duke call me Duke, not judge

Use cross-ex effectively it’s one of the most important parts of debate and I’ve seen too many people let it go to waste

I weigh pre-fiat impacts before existential impacts

Speed I’m like a 7 out of 10, if your going to fast I’ll yell clear

Aff gets unlimited perms. but neg gets unlimited condo and they get competing interps so it evens out

If you don't want the aff to get unlimited perms then read theory or if you don't want the neg to get condo read theory or if you don't want them to have competing interps then read reasonability That all is just what I will default to.

Ks:

Please read your Poetry Ks, while I personally haven’t seen one that was spoken effectively, I’m more than happy to give you every piece of advice that I can to make them better bc poetry Ks are SO MUCH FUN! The main thing I look for in Poetry Ks above all else is Consistent Diagetic Pentameter with impactful breaks in your meter.

if you read Normie Ks that’s cool too, however I don’t have a lot of background knowledge on like Psycho-Ks and Baudy

CPs:

I hate delay CPs they are more cheating than consult CPs however, I can’t stop you from reading them so go ahead ig, I just won’t like it

Disads:

cool but no racism good or ableism good sexism good etc.

also impact turns on extinction is underrated

FIAT links are dope

Theory/T:

Don't read more than 2 T shells on a case. also education is a standard, not a voter. and please for the love of all that is holy have standards and voters that are flushed out. I'm cool with whatever type of theory you wanna read I'll vote off of anything even stuff like snowball theory and 30 speaks

Policy:

DONT PARAPHRASE I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY IT BUT ITS HAPPENED. IF YOU PARAPHRASE A CARD I WON'T FLOW IT (lmk of any speech impediments or anything like that before round starts for this to not apply to you)

LD:

The neg has too much ground.

FW: If y’all don’t give me a fw debate I’ll just toss a coin because I refuse to let my moral relativism to intervene your round

Theory: the aff gets 1AR theory so you don't need to waste your time telling me that you do instead preempt the most common neg args.

PF:

why haven't Ks been normalized in pf? You can read them you should read them

also PLEASE READ THEORY

+1 speaks if ALL of your turns are actually turns

congress:

lol

Worlds:

+3 speaks in style if you call the opp the senate

BQ:

The tournament that I did BQ at I read a set-col K and won every round I read it. BQ is stupid

Other Stuff

Meta-debate: it's cool if you wanna read theory on my paradigm go for it. if the other team is for my paradigm then you will have to win the theory argp

I shouldn't have to say it but DON'T turn structural violence unless its extinction (yes I believe that extinction is good)

birds are fake

I flow on paper IDK why that matters but people talk about it in other paradigms soo their

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

My model for great debate is not focused on terms that have become cultural conventions. I dislike the terms "voters," "flow," and "cards." Great debate should focus on ideas; that is to say, I do not mind the philosophy of explaining to a judge why you won, why arguments do and do not connect, and evidence that is germane, but I do mind that debaters expect certain things when they use those terms.

I like debate that focuses on the issue and remains topical whenever possible. I do not like when debate becomes a highly technical examination of who understands the cultural conventions better.

If you gamify the rules, like accusing an opponent of abuse, dropping an argument, or having a plan in PF, this will affect my decision. You should be EXTREMELY sure that these violations have occurred before using these terms.

I like enthusiasm.

Debate paradigm:

For all formats, I focus on solid argumentation and skillful use of rhetoric. Framework is important to me. Tell me how you plan to win your argument and follow through. I do not usually favor competitors who try avoiding the topic by focusing on loosely connected tangents or technicalities. When giving voters, I do not enjoy hearing a list of individual points won. Instead, I favor big-picture summaries of what you have accomplished in the debate focused on how each individual argument supports your side of the resolution. Avoid the over-use of debate-specific terms, like which points "flow through". You should be able to tell me in lay terminology how you've won this debate. Especially be careful of claiming your opponent "dropped your case" or similar claims. If you claim this and it isn't true, this will affect my decision.

Speak clearly and with sufficient volume that I do not need to guess what you said. Courtesy towards your opponent is important to me. You should be able to argue without resorting to name-calling or caustic accusations. Communication skills matter as well. If I feel opponents are rhetorically matched, nonverbal and vocal communication skills may break the tie for me.

Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge enough to enjoy the competition. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy, too!

Format-specific paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas:

Value and criterion debate are crucial. I will heavily consider those competitors who successfully advocate their value and criterion over their opponent’s. One can lose the flow but win the value/criterion debate and still win the round.

I only partially flow, and I only judge partially based on the flow. A dropped argument is still considered poor argumentation to me, but not all arguments carry the same weight, and just because a contention is glossed over does not mean the entire debate was lost. I will expect more rhetorically sound, evidence-based contentions to be the priority.

Some competitors try adapting strategies from other debate formats to LD, such as running kritik or spreading. I do not favor such strategies. I focus on the moral argumentation, on rhetorically sound argumentation of the assigned topic, and on clear, professional communication skills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am new to this speech and debate world, as I never participated in high school. I am proudly a "mom" judge, and do my best to be fair and constructive in my comments and decisions. I enjoy learning and developing more as a judge during each tournament.

I have judged a few speech competitions and a congress competition. Although, I may lack experience, I am able to follow along with debates, even if you are speaking fast. I pay particular attention to evidence for your claims. I am a stickler for recent and unbiased evidence. I like to have a clear summary of your analysis of why you should win the final rebuttal. Above all, I expect respect for each other. I will drop you points if I see or hear any rudeness or disrespect to your team or the other team.

I love to judge because I learn so much from listening to your individual viewpoints. Enjoy what you're doing, be kind to others, and good luck!

First and foremost, I still consider myself to be a new judge. I have been judging since November 2022. I see myself as a communication judge. Speak clearly at a conversational pace. Make sure you state your arguments clearly. I want to be able to track all of your arguments. Make it obvious when you are beginning a new argument or rebutting one of your opponents. I like to see good cross, both in questioning and answering.

Give me some voters in final speeches. Tell me what you think the focus of the round is and where your arguments outweigh your opponents.

I don’t like Kritiks or Theory arguments and normally won’t vote for the debater that uses them.

Tag teaming is fine in that the partner isn’t answering but just providing information.

I will base part of my decision based how well organization you are and how you present you arguments.

Communication is Key!!

I also vote on Stock Issues.

Tag Teaming and arguments based on T are HIGHLY DISCOURAGED!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. You should be able to perform a good speech without having to shock and awe me through graphic depictions.

For Speech events, I like fun stuff like Humorous Interp or Retold Story

For Debate, I did LD and Policy in high school. I'm open to judging Congress or PF as well. I'm pretty tabula rosa, but I'm a history teacher so if that affects anything...

I have competed in every type of debate there is in some way or another. Overall, I value impact-based debate, tell me why your arguments matter. How does it affect us or the thing that you are debating over? For all types of debate, I will value tech over truth as long as you have the reasoning and evidence to back it up.

Public Forum: This is the type of debate that I have the most experience in. Public Forum debate should not have a plan and should not become a topicality debate. As this is an impact-based debate I will value clear impacts with evidence and logic to back it up. If no one clearly wins off of impacts I will look to the flow.

LD: Value and Criterion should be clear and your case should tie back into both. Again, impacts need to be clear and have evidence to back them up. If it is a close round I will first look at value criterion debate, then the flow.

CX: If you are going to speak fast please make sure that it is understandable. I will judge policy based on flow.

If you have any questions please feel free to ask before round! One thing that will also be a potential deciding factor is niceness in round. Please be courteous, debate is a game that we play with our friends.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your speeches if you can't make logical arguments. When a speech is delivered too quickly, evidence can be lost and therefore can leave the argument unsupported. If I feel that your speed defies normal communication rate, I will set my pen down. This means that your arguments are not being flowed and do not exist.

I enjoy clash, but it needs to be respectful. When looking at the constructive speech a few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. I will forever identify as a “communication judge”. After all, if you are not developing positive real-life skills, what is the point?

I will flow to keep track of the debate, but I am not a flow judge.

Lincoln Douglas debates: The value and criterion are the foundation of the debate. Policy does not belong in LD.

Policy: Stock issues are key.

Congress: Well written speeches are wonderful, but they should be delivered extemporaneously and be authentic to the conversation being had. Also, any speeches given, should add depth to the argument; please avoid repeating main points that have already been presented.

Public Forum: Polite and well informed debate is a must, respect your opponents time. This form of debate was created to be a lay person debate, and I will view it as such.

Be decent humans.

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

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

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

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

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

I love debate. Do it well :)

Hullo! I'm excited to meet you and hope you're feeling okay as you come into round.

My paradigm is pretty simplistic - I am looking for good communication, strong cases, and for you to have fun! Depending on the format, my feedback will be a little more specific. I have experience either competing or judging all of the formats here.

Here's a couple of things you'll probably want to know about me before round begins:

As a judge, I have 3 years of debate background and 2 years of speech. LD is my absolute favorite, but I have also competed in PF before. I LOVE traditional LD debate, but can follow progressive debate if that's the way you and your opponent want to take the round. The best way to win my vote is impacts, but I will use comms as a tiebreaker. Have both comms and impacts and you'll most definitely win my ballot. Voters are huge for me, but if you try to claim something that is overtly false (ex. you say you brought up a card when you didn't or you say your opponent dropped something they did not) it will not go well for you. Have fun this round, the best way to do well is debate (or speech) is to find what makes it fun. Let me see who you are as a debater/speaker and you will do great :)

I shouldn't have to say this but be a good human.

Any questions about my paradigm? Don't be afraid to ask :)

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

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

Debate is foremost a persuasive activity where being strategic means developing clear, clever, and organized solutions to resolve the issues put forward by the topic and the round. In front of me, you should read whatever argument you feel that you are most persuasive on, interested in, and proud of. The more that argument clashes with your opponent, the better the debate.

Frame the debate in the final rebuttals. Do your research. Look, sound and act like you're winning till somebody tells you different.

I am a blank slate and objective for every debate. I will base my decisions on which team was the most persuasive in their arguments, whatever those arguments may be. Were your arguments relevant and did they further your contentions? Did you use cross effectively (were you able to poke holes in the persuasiveness of your opponents arguments)? Were your arguments and attacks cohesive throughout the debate, or did you bounce all over the place? Did I get a sense that you really understood the topic? Did you use evidence? Did you say "like" or "um" a million times? All of those things factor into my decisions.

I LOVE hearing the evidence you prepared. I want to hear how your evidence backs up the facts you are trying to assert. Without evidence, I may assume you are making stuff up which could lose you points.

Time management and knowing how to effectively argue each round is important. For instance, it is not proper to bring up new evidence and arguments during Final Focus. Additionally, if you struggle with time management, I will probably notice. Make sure that you have a good grasp on where you are at in the debate.

LOOK UP! If you have researched your topic well, there is no reason that you should be buried in your phone, ipad, or computer. You should use those tools as guidelines and to keep you on track, but I want to feel that you have a good understanding of what you are arguing. That enhances your persuasiveness to me.

Do's:

- Warrant every claim you make

- Signpost

- Weigh (start in rebuttal if possible)

- Line-by-Line in summary and final focus

- Make analytical responses coupled with evidence, rather than just reading cards

Don'ts:

- Poorly paraphrase evidence

- Speed as a tool of exclusion

- Use statistics or evidence that you can't explain

I am a mixture of communication and flow. I need to see you hold up your own case, but I do care how you express yourself and treat your opponent. Civility is crucial. If you are rude, patronizing, or needlessly aggressive, you will lose. I need to understand what you say, so please speak slowly enough for me to understand.

I appreciate clear arguments supported by reputable evidence. I do not fully flow, but I do take notes, so don't drop arguments without an explanation. If I feel it is a close debate, I will judge on who had better communication. Be nice to opponents, if you are rude or dominate cross even when your opponent is trying to ask questions I will not give you the win.

Add me on email chains and email me if you have any questions before/after the round: hankanator13@gmail.com

TL;DR: I consider myself Tab Ras. I am comfortable with any type of argument, I am comfortable with any speed (P L E A S E drop a doc if we're online. I dont care how good you are, momentary lag could literally lose you my ballot - if i dont hear it or read it, i dont flow it), don't impact turn structural violence if you have any moral compass, and be respectful. Debate is a game you play with your friends, and you can't be friends with someone you don't respect! Plus if everyone is mad at each other all the time, none of us have fun. I probably won't look at the debaters too much, but know that I am listening, flowing, and processing every word!

Above all, the most important part of every debate is inclusion: Elitist and exclusionary practices are killing this activity across the board.

When your opponent has an accessibility request; unless you have a legitimate reason that their request is unrealistic, please comply and adjust your strategy so that your opponent can participate at their best. Reading overly complex arguments so your opponent can't respond and spreading when your opponent has asked you not to does not make you cool, smart, or a good debater. The best debaters are excited to have their ideas tested by other intellectual minds, not so scared of losing that they will do anything they can to manipulate the ballot for a cheap win. Oh, and also, please remember to have fun :)

LD/PF

LD: Value/Criterion

• This is framework. It decides how I vote and what impacts I vote on, but it is not in and of itself a reason to vote for you. So just know, if you stand up in your last speech and tell me your first voter is the v/c debate, I am inwardly sighing.
• There are a million different arguments you can read for framework, and the majority are strong enough to vote through. That being said, in my humble opinion, V/C arguments like Morality are empty and mean nothing. Whose morals? What moral guidelines? So, know that the more specific and nuanced framework will most always win out over the vague and general one.

PF: Framework

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

Substance

• Links, Links, Links. Debate is about the links. How do we get from your argument to its impact; how does voting for economic growth leads to a decrease in poverty; how does the existence of great power competition lead to nuclear war; how does implementing a UBI mean a marxist takeover that results in the death of all the soy plants as we are all forced to be vegans, etc! If you go through the effort of intentionally building a solid narrative that can guide me to the voting issues, the ballot will probably be in your favor. In other words, extend your case, don't just respond to what your opponent has said against your arguments!
• Impact Calc! The more impact calc you do in the debate, the less I have to do after the speeches are over, and that only works in your favor. Tell me why your arguments outweigh your opponent's and the debate will be a lot easier for you.
• A clean flow makes a clean ballot! Make the effort to stay extra organized, and it will only work in your favor.
• Give me voters; in your perfect world, my RFD should just be a regurgitation of your last speech. Tell me where you're winning in your eyes. Tell me what's important to evaluate and make my life easier.
• Be Confident in yourself! You've got this!

Everything else is in CX

CX

I default to stock issues until told otherwise. I will vote on what you tell me to except impact turns to structural violence as explained above.

T

Here is where I have made enemies (Jett). I will vote for T. I will. But just be very aware that the bar for your Interp is really high. If their aff is actually non-topical, then it should be the easiest debate to vote on as I believe in fairness and education above all else. However, if the T debate is just teams spreading definitions of what Russia or NATO is back and forth, I will ignore T. You have been warned. :P

Theory

Every theory shell needs the following: Interpretation, Violation, Standards, Voters/Impacts, and Framing. Theory is to correct abuse, so don't make me sad by being abusive with your theory.

F/W

Tab Ras - what you say goes, right up until they say something different. Then you've gotta prove why your worldview is better.

AC

I don't care how you structure your case, just make sure it has all the necessary parts. K affs are dope and you will make me happy by reading one, but it is really easy to tell if you're reading one without knowing what it actually is, typically by the first cx, if not the rebuttals (don't just steal off of open ev).

DA

Every disad needs clear uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. If they all exist in one piece of evidence, great. But you need to do the work to make the chain of events clear to me, as the clearer your argument is the more likely I am to vote on it.

CP

I love a CP. Read one if you do too. Every CP needs a text, it needs to be mutually exclusive, and it needs to have a net benefit. I.e. I need to know what the counterplan is, why it can't happen in the aff world, and why it is a better course of action than the aff. Perms are a test of competition, so if they can prove why the aff and neg can coexist, it doesn't become a reason to vote neg anymore, and I can comfortably default to the aff.

K

Warning for Idaho: I understand that it can be exciting to get a prog judge and want to read a k on the rare opportunity. However, in my experience, it is better for you to win the round with the prog judge and get solid feedback on the arguments you know, as opposed to the arguments that you've brushed up on or downloaded from the wiki. I'm always in the mood for a K, but reread the fairness piece at the top of the RFD. If you're a varsity excited to smoke a novice because, unlike you, the novice hasn't spent hours reading Baudrillard or Mbembe, you are bad at debate and I dislike you. That being reiterated, I love a good K debate! A few notes:

• Frame the ballot. When you read a K, give me a role in your vision of the world so that I know what's expected of me as a judge; give me instructions. If I have a stock lay case against an Identity K, I'm going to need work from both sides to determine the ballot. Most likely the K will be read against a case that has V/C or CBA which is framework. So, contest the moral question brought by the other team; don't ignore it.

• In 999/1000 cases I Do Not Believe in You Link You Lose. Prove the impact, no matter how obvious the impact is (even cap). Prove everything and assume nothing.
• The more specific the alt the better. Personally, I believe the material strategies outweigh complex ivory tower proposals to change the entirety of the human race's epistemology. In other words, I buy the alt of anarchist revolution by defunding the police and handing out guns in the street more than I buy the alt of transforming society into hippies singing kumbayah and loving one another. Extreme and hyper specific examples for sure, but I hope the point is carried across.

Do it, but do it right. I need a clear impact, a clear link to the aff, and an even clearer alternative. A material course of action is always better than a vague epistemology argument (tho epistemology is obviously key to K). I you want me to burn everything down, I will grab the torch, but you need to do all of the work necessary to outweigh the aff.

I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguements and communicate effectivly. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your arguement and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. Keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!

I am a mom judge. Please assume nothing. If you point things out to me I will vote on those things. :)

I've been judging for more than 15 years now. I've been a coach for more than 7 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

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

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

Congress: I very much hate redundant, rehashed, speeches. You don't all need to speak on the same bill. It hurts you when you do that because the later speeches don't have new points and don't progress the debate. Direct, by name, refutation is absolutely going to help you. Using evidence AND citing your evidence is absolutely going to benefit you. You don't need to wave your arm like you're trying to conduct an orchestra. Movement can either add or detract from your speech. Move with a purpose and make sure that it adds to your speech otherwise it's a waste. If you use an intro, which is recommended, make sure you tie it into your conclusion because it ties everything into a nice little bow. I, also, use the NSDA guidelines for scoring speeches and PO time.

P.O. Be ruthlessly efficient. Cut out all of the unnecessary wording. You don't need to thank them for a speech. If we just had a speech in affirmation we don't need to tell everyone that. You can just say "negation" and tap and expect people to rise to be recognized. That saves a lot of time. Same thing for questioning. Cut out all the unnecessary words. It slows the round down and makes it so you don't get the maximum number of speeches. Shut down dilatory motions. Only recognize one motion at a time. Keep the chamber in order. Don't recognize motions that aren't a part of Parli Pro.

SPEECH:

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

I am a 2nd year judge. If debaters talk too fast, I won't understand them. I lean towards logic and persuasion and evidence.

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

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

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

Congress:

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

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

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

LD:

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

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

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

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

CX:

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

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

I am ok with tag teaming.

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

Be an ethical debater.

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

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

I am an experienced LD debater and judge. I'm also most of the way through my philosophy and economics majors, so odds are I will understand the majority of arguments you are trying to run. I dislike progressive debate (mostly its speed and exclusionary language), largely for its impacts on debate and its accessibility, and will almost always prefer traditional debate on the ballot (especially in LD). I encourage you to ask for my paradigm in round if you have more questions or need clarifications.

I am a communications judge. I focus on clarity, evidence and good speaking skills. Stay respectful and professional and have good clash. I did debate/speech all through high-school and am a experienced judge and Asst.Coach.

I'm a tech over truth flow judge, but if you read role of the ballot arguments that flow through the debate, this can change. 

As a flow judge, I do not like dropped arguments, highly value impact calculus, and want to see good clash between arguments during the round. However, I do accept strategic dropping of arguments, just explain to me why you dropped x argument. 

As a tech over truth judge, I do not vote for arguments based on whether or not you/your team has convinced me that the argument is true, but rather how you/your team handles the argument strategically. 

Policy:

Theory/Kritiks:

These are by far my favorite arguments in policy debate. I studied a lot of social theory and philosophy in college, so I will be able to follow these types of debates.

That said, make sure that you always read framework at the top of the Kritik so that I know how you want me to evaluate the social theory that you are reading. There are many different ways to interpret social theory, so without a solid framework I'm just going to leave it up to my interpretation of that work, which may or may not be the interpretation you wanted.

Additionally, please make sure that your Kritik/theory is accessible to the other team. This does not mean you have to change the text of the theory or the K, but that in CX you make sure to explain the arguments simply when asked about them. A lot of teams will use big abstract terms when explaining their K's in CX, but this can be inaccessible, especially for teams who have not been exposed to K lit. 

In terms of theory about debate, I am down for those types of arguments as well. Just make sure that you explain why these matter and define whether or not they are a voting issue (e.g. explain if the argument means I should drop the other team and why). 

My threshold for flowing these types of arguments aff lowers if all the parts of the K/Theory are not included. Make sure to include interps, violations, standards, etc. in the first speech and extend them throughout the debate. 

Spreading:

Spreading is absolutely fine with me as long as everyone is comfortable with it. If you want to spread let me know before the round and we can devise a way for everyone to let the speaker know if they are having trouble understanding what the speaker is saying.

Also, please slow down on taglines and signposts simply because it makes it easier for everyone in the round to get everything from your speeches down on the flow.

Topicality:

I am alright with people reading topicality, however my threshold for the number of topicality arguments that can be read in one round is fairly low. I am not a fan of the strategy of reading multiple topicality arguments in one round and then kicking down to one. That said if you do go with this strategy and are winning on it, I will still vote for you as a tab judge, I will probably just give you lower speaker points because that many T arguments just is not very persuasive.

Also, dropped arguments are huge for me on topicality. When responding to and extending topicality you need to be addressing every single interpretation, counterinterpretation, standard, voter, etc.

CPs:

Feel free to read CPs, but if they aren't mutually exclusive my threshold for flowing the CP to the aff will be incredibly low. My threshold for voting neg on the CP also lowers if the CP is not well flushed out. The CP does not have to be incredibly long, but it has an unclear plan or lack of solvency (for example), then it is easier for the aff to convince me to flow the CP to them. 

PF:

In PF I value the framework debate highly. The speeches are very short, and having a good framework can help you consolidate the round and win much more easily than doing line by line. Because of this, who wins the framework debate highly impacts the way I vote.

Aside from that I value impacts and want to see good clash between both sides.

I'm alright with theory and spreading in PF as long as everyone in the round is ok with it.

LD:

Value/criterion:

Frameworks is incredibly important for me as a judge in LD.

In round, make sure that you clearly state what theory that you are using for your value and criterion, and what your interpretation of that theory is. I have my own preconceived understanding of what particular theories and philosophical perspectives mean, and will default to my interpretation if not provided with a different one. E.g. I don't want just a blanket definition of the term, I want to know how it applies to your points and the round as whole.

Carry your value/criterion throughout the debate and use it to explain why you win the debate.

Turning Structural Violence Impacts:

This is the only type of argument that I will not consider in a debate round. Saying that genocide or racism is good is never ok. I will drop you if you do this or do anything majorly disrespectful in round.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote.

TheoryI love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

I will flow just about everything. I weigh dropped arguments harder than highly contested arguments. For example, if Team A has ground on their Advantage, and Team B doesn't ever answer or refute and put a counterargument on the flow, that Advantage will be of a larger impact than Team B’s disadvantage which both sides were fighting for back and forth.

If both teams cover everything on the flow to the best of their ability, it will come down to who provided the best analytical and evidential arguments. This will also largely come from whichever team had the best speaking ability.

Public Forum

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk or a bully. I hate it. Your scores will reflect it.

I weigh evidence higher than framework. Quality evidence should be applicable, cited, not twisted or warped to your meaning, and from a good source. Don’t tell me “our card so and so from this date is evidence against such and such”. Read my your cards. Tell me why your source is more reputable than your opponent's source. Tell me why your evidence is important. Don't tell me that you win the case if your opponent cant win your framework. You present the arguments and let me decide who should win or lose and why.

Time yourself. Don’t tell me you want to use 30 seconds of your prep time and make me tell you when that is up.

Speak clearly and at a speed that is good for your voice. Don’t push it. It is in your best interest to make sure I can understand you.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. If your opponent asks a question that kills your case, answer it and hope that I don't catch that it killed your case. Don’t try to sneak or bully your way around it. I WILL notice that and will judge accordingly.

I personally hate brief off time road maps that don’t tell me anything new. They always say, “I am going to build my case, then as time allows I will discredit my opponent's case. Yada, yada, yada” Why waste everyone's time?

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Policy

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk. I hate it. I find strategies centered on shenanigans, bullying and manipulation to be annoying. Your scores will reflect it.

I can usually follow fast speaking, if it is spoken clearly. I usually am not good at flowing spreading, as such, I can’t award wins based on information that is presented that way. It is in your best interest to make sure I can understand you. Often speed is used to try to cover up poor word economy and poor arguments. Do not tell me that your opponents dropped a point if they didn’t drop it. It tells me that you actually did not understand what your opponent was saying, are trying to bully me into believing you, or trying to deceive me. Any of them reflect poorly on you. Make sure they actually did drop it before you accuse them of it.

I appreciate signposting to help me identify that your plan covers all 5 areas that it should. Make sure you cover harms, inherency, plan, solvency, and topicality.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. If your opponent asks a question that kills your case, answer it and hope that I don't catch that it killed your case. Don’t try to sneak or bully your way around it. I WILL notice that and will judge accordingly.

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Lincoln-Douglas

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk. I hate it.

LD is a value debate. Know what your value means. The person that argues their value best wins the debate. It's that simple.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. Know your case. I watch for canned speeches and score them harshly. If someone else wrote your speech, at least take the time to learn what it is saying.

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

As a coach, my paradigm may shift slightly based on the form of debate.

Congressional Debate: I'm looking for a few well-constructed arguments. Though I would never ask for evidence in Congress, it earns you points to cite evidence in your speeches. I discourage being a late speaker on a bill unless you have new insights or arguments that weren't addressed previously. Please don't just stand and repeat what many others have said. Keep questions short--the longer they get, the more awkward and confused you sound. Have fun, but joke speeches will drop you to the bottom of my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: It's all about the value and criterion (note that a criterion is a measuring tool by which we can see you've achieved your value; it is not a second value). All contentions should tie back to the value and criterion. The winner usually has shown that they either achieve both values better, has the only value that is achieved in either world, or has done sufficient harm to their opponent's case. Though I value logic more in LD than other debate formats, evidence will always enhance my evaluation.

Policy Debate: If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly. I do not favor quantity over quality. If I don't have time to write it on my flow sheet, it was never said. In order to win, the Affirmative needs to win all five stock issues; The Negative must win one stock issue (to suggest you could win in any other way is like a basketball player claiming they can win by how good they are at acting like they've been fouled). If the Neg presents a counter-plan, they have conceded the harms and inherency. At this point, you may only attack the plan and show that you solve better. Topicality is still an option if it was presented in the 1NR.

Public Forum: Public Forum is intended to persuade the average person off the street. I will flow the debate, but I will also judge heavily on your communication and ability to clearly explain the arguments on both sides. Overwhelming the "average person" is not the same as persuading them. If you would rather debate rules and pack four minutes with page after page of spewed evidence, I recommend switching over to Policy debate--better yet, change your ways.

Generally: Logic is great; Evidence is great; Logic and Evidence together are AWESOME! Be true to the form of debate you are in--there's a reason there are different events. Respect your opponents. Be ready to debate. Sign-posting greatly increases the chance that your comments get on my flow; if it's not on my flow, it was never said.

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