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.

Hello! My paradigm will be broken down into a general overview of how I judge and specifics for each main event is listed below. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round starts.

I don't typically judge on this point, but remember to respect everyone in the round. This means not insulting people, respecting people's pronouns and prefered names. Generally, don't be rude and disrespectful. If there is a major issue in this regard I will take it to tab and contact the coaches and individuals who need to know. I don't expect this to be an issue, but I do want to set the expectation.

I did debate in high school so I am very familiar with all of the events. I primarily competed in Policy and LD. I'm primarily an impact and flow judge. Show me clear links to the impacts and how they are relevent to the round. Make sure that arguments aren't dropped, and if they are I know why and that it's intentional. I don't mind if people speak quickly, as long as all the judges (if there are multiple) and competitors agree before the round begins. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, mostly because I have often seen it used as a way to overwhelm the other team and win because of dropped arguments instead of debating in any real depth. I think it is important to have multiple different arguments to present, but I do prefer quality over quantity. If you set up a SpeechDrop or email chain please include me in it. Overall, be nice, have fun and try your best!

Policy:

Policy was the event I did the most in high school, so while I may not be familiar with the topic, I am well aware of the rules. I like impact debates with a solid focus on the flow. However, don't sacrifice comms for flow or impacts. I don't mind Counter Plans or Topicality arguments, but I'm not a huge fan of Kritiks. If you decide to run a K, make sure you understand it very well and have a solid link and alt. I don't usually vote on Ks and I often find them to be more trouble than they're worth. Many times people don't understand what they're saying and missinterpret the authors they're citing. I will know if you don't understand what you're saying, it will affect the quality of the debate, and impact your chances of winning. I like seeing a lot of clash on both sides of the flow. Make the round interesting, show me exactly why the plan is either a great or a terrible idea.

LD:

I love the value and criterion debates in LD. I like a lot of clash on both sides of the flow, but don't forget the value and criterion. I am a more traditional person when it comes to LD because I don't like counter plans or counter advocacies and I like seeing the moral side of the debate. Impacts are important, but in LD morality is the primary focus. Please don't try to turn the round into policy or PF. Those events have their places, LD is not one of them. I have yet to see a Kritik in an LD round that needed to be there. Often the arguments in the K could just be run as part of the case, so I'm not a huge fan.

PF:

I didn't really do PF in high school, so I am less familiar with the rules and standards. Regardless, I like seeing a solid framework that is upheld in the round and a solid flow. I do like impacts and clear link chains. I do prefer when frameworks are more than Cost Benefit Analysis, but it's not a requirement to win.

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

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

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

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

SPEECH:

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

General/ For all Debate

I am a flow communications judge. That is not to say I will be judging you by how well you speak, but by how effectively you do it. However, my decisions will primarily be derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash, explode, have fireworks, and all the cool things about debate. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guess work that could potentially harm your side of the debate. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overtly rude to your opponents- basically, I do not wish for ad hominems to come into action. Lastly, I competed 4 years in high school and 4 in college. I've been to nationals, won it twice in college, and placed in the top 5 two other years. I can keep up. Debate how you want to debate, but make sure it is accessible. Before running a K ask your opponent if they are okay with prog debate. I do not want speed, k, theory, overviews, etc. to become a way to isolate your opponent.

LD

In voting issues do more than note you win on Value Criterion. VC is a weighing mechanism not something that wins the debate simply because yours is better- frankly I do not care which VC is better if one person upholds both better. Upon coaching LD for a year I have determined I have never been more wrong in my life. VC is super important in LD and most of your time needs to be spent here proving why your VC matters. Do I like it? No, but it is what it is.

Policy

In-n-outs are fine, tag teaming keep to a minimum if one partner does all the work it looks bad on you. I prefer lay over prog in terms of theory and Kritics, but if you can contextualize them and flush them out I can keep up.

I have been judging speech and debate for six years now (over 60 tournaments). I never debated in high school. I got involved in the debate community when my oldest child joined the debate team. I have had four kids on the debate team, two currently. So I guess you could say I am an experienced mommy judge. I have tried my best to learn as much as I can so that I can be a competent and fair judge. With that in mind, I offer you my paradigm:

In general, I am good with speed, I flow, and I allow tag teaming, flex time, non-timed road maps and non-timed evidence exchange. I prefer tech over truth, depth over breadth, and don't mind if you group arguments. I am a big picture judge and an impact calculus junkie. I understand debate lingo. I don't mind if you want to debate progressively or traditionally. I am open to all arguments. I appreciate logical and analytical arguments as much as evidence based arguments. I don't like to set limits on how you debate because I want you to enjoy your round and try new things. I have entertained a conversation kritik (LD) and love letters to the ocean (CX) in the past. I still have my treasured flows from the Beetle Kritik (CX China Resolution). As you can see, I am up for anything, but don't assume I know everything. Remember that although I have six years of experience judging, I am still learning. If you have something you really want to run, do it, but keep me up with you and educate me on your pet argument as you debate. I also love voters because I am lazy and if if I agree with your voters, you have just filled out my ballot for me. Now for some specifics:

In Lincoln Douglas debate I allow counter plans and progressive arguments. I only value the V & C if you do. I am still trying to figure out why that is so important. But I have voted on it in the past if the debaters made a big deal about it. I am more likely to vote against you if you drop an argument, since LD is all about clash, but will allow you to group arguments in subpoints as long as you answer each contention.

In Public Forum debate I don't have any specific things you should know. Just have fun.

Policy is my favorite. So know that if I get to judge your round, I am just so glad to be here. I think I covered most of it in my general paradigm but I did want to discuss T. I have voted on T before but only if it was an obscure aff and not one of the five novice affs. I go for reasonability over competing interpretations. However, I have had some beautiful T arguments wasted on me, I am very sorry to say. If you love T arguments and are willing to risk it, then persuade me and educate me on T. I want to understand it better and be more open minded in this area. I would have to say this is the only area I am biased, but it's simply because I don't get it.

For those of you in Congress, I only have one thing to say: warrant your claims with credible evidence. I immediately drop you two ranks if you don't warrant your claims.

Bottom line: have fun and enjoy your rounds. Good luck!

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.