What I look for while judging, in a nutshell:

Be respectful to your opponents or fellow participants, speak clearly and not too fast, cite your sources and give evidence to back your statements.

I am so impressed that you are here, participating in this. Have fun!

You spew, you lose!

Also, be civil to your opponents and stuff.

I am a parent of a Timpview High School debate student. I did not participate in debate as a student, and have not judged very many debate tournaments.

I appreciate when debaters can present their arguments clearly and succinctly rather than speed reading through a list of flow points as fast as they can.

For LD, I will evaluate the round using an interpretive framework. This establishes an approach to the resolution and presents evaluative positions to the judge. For each resolution, no matter what side you are advocating you
should ask yourself, not only what must I defend but to which degree must I defend it? Must my
position (and my opponents') be true always or true most of the time? What exceptions can be
made and which exceptions cannot be tolerated? Your interpretive framework should explicitly
answer these questions.

Email: blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com (add me on all email chain's.)

Preferences:

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, a ballot, or a decision please feel free to reach out to me at blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com and I will be happy to help you out.

Please prioritize debating how you are comfortable rather than conforming to every little thing that I say in my paradigm. My paradigm is more of a suggestion than a requirement to win the round. Debate is for the debater, not for the judge; and I want to see rounds where teams want to be there. I am comfortable with all styles of debate and don't think there is an objective best way to do it. If you debate how you know how, you will do great!

I judge mostly on tech, but I do like big picture arguments in the ladder half of the debate. However, please please please EXTEND YOUR WARRANTS first before going big picture on me. Common sense is your greatest tool, warranting will almost always trumps cards.

Please weigh weigh weigh. I need you to tell me why you win. I don't want to be the one to decide what arguments are most important. You as the debater should be telling me this. With that being said, effective weighing is reliant upon good link debate. Good warrants are a pre-requisite to weighing, and good evidence is necessary to have good warrants.

T: I am comfortable voting on T. Competing interps are best. However, I should have a reason to vote for T, like if your opponent violates but there is no real impact to T, I'm just gonna drop it. If you want there to be RVI's you need to tell me; I will assume there are no RVI's otherwise.

Case K: You can read them, but they should have direct links to the case or topic. If you have specific questions, just send me an email or ask me in round. K's in PF feel like you are shooting yourself in the foot because of the time constraint, LD and policy are preferred.

I have noticed a new trend with K debate where teams are kicking the alt and running the K as a DA/Turn to case. I am not a super big fan. This is fine in some circumstances, but people are doing it way too often. If you are going to do this, you better have super solid framework.

Performance or Debate about debate: Threshold for winning on these arguments is higher than a case K, but you can run them. Just make sure your framing is good, and I need solid warrants on why I should vote on performance.

Warranting is everything. Evidence is great, but the evidence has to have a warrant to weigh it. This is also true if you are trying to do evidence comparison. (Ie. If you tell me to post date, there needs to be a warrant as to why the post dating matters.)

I am comfortable with both trad and progressive LD and am happy to judge on both and don't think one is better than the other.

Judge Instruction is your friend. Paint a picture of the round and why you win and you will have a better chance of me voting for you.

Most importantly, just be comfortable and have fun!

I'm not super experienced in this arena, I didn't participate in speech and debate in high school (we called it "forensics" back then--don't ask me why) and I just started judging in the fall of 2023 when my kid joined the speech and debate team. I think because of that, my paradigm is going to be more aligned with a "person you meet on the street" than a person who is well-versed in the intricacies of speech and debate. (Although--I am actively striving to learn more and be a better judge with each event.)

Because of this, there are a few points I'd like to share.

Don't speak too fast. If you are talking too quickly, I get overwhelmed and it can be hard for me to take in all that you are saying, much less evaluate and fully understand it. So, in the choice between quantity of information and quality of information, always go with quality. When possible, try to provide context for the information, such as how it relates to the question at hand, how it will likely impact people in real life, etc.

I love a good road map (whether off time or on time). When you let me know where we're going, and then at the end remind me where we've been, it takes the load off of me needing to glean that information from what you say. That frees me up to truly focus on you, your performance, and the points that you are making, which will result in you getting better feedback from me, and a score that is the result of more thought on my part.

In Impromptu speeches, be clear and deliberate about how your speech relates to the prompt. Often a student will read the prompt at the beginning of the speech, and then immediately pivot to a subject that is only tangentially related to the prompt (presumably because they are more comfortable speaking about or more prepared to address that subject), and then give a speech about that subject, rather than the prompt.

I don't know that I blame you for doing that (you are definitely pressed for time, no question), but the name of the event is Impromptu, not "retrofitting previously prepared speeches to fit a prescribed prompt." Because of that, I definitely pay attention to how well the speech fits within the prompt. Of course, with a total of 7 minutes to prepare and speak, I don't expect you to be able to present a perfectly prepared offering on a subject that was just given to you. I guess what I'm saying is that if you do decide to speak about something that isn't clearly and directly related to the prompt, strive to build a nice sturdy bridge to get us from the prompt to your subject and then back again.

Finally, this isn't a paradigm thing, but I want to thank you for participating in speech and debate. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to be able to hear you and learn from you. You make me think, you entertain me, you educate me, and most importantly, you give me hope for the future of our nation and our world, and it is always a pleasure for me to be with you. Thank you!

I am new to judging debate and speech.

In debate I like sources to back the debate, I flow based off contentions taking into account which contentions hold.

For speech I like when the speaker engages the audience.

Public Forum:

I did public forum all through high school, I'll be a flow judge, so you'll need to tell me exactly why I should be voting for you and where I prefer your argument over your opponents. Framework needs to be held up throughout the whole round or it means nothing to me. More specifically, I want to see the weighing of impacts throughout the entire round and I want to see clear and concise links in your arguments. Back up your claims, and don't shy away from logical explanations. If you're attempting to make a point and don't have clear linking and/or adequate evidence to show me your points validity, I just wont flow it. Make my job easy for me. - and I can handle speed as long as you can form coherent words. I will judge whatever it is you're running, whether its progressive, traditional or even something I've never heard of before, ill weigh it all objectively but it is your job to tell me why to vote in your favor. Effective analysis is the holy grail of debating. I won't flow cross, if you think something was important in cross- bring it up in speech. I don't care for off-time roadmaps, but if thats your thing then thats fine by me. I'm big on organization so keep up with signposting.

Lincoln Douglas: I have a lot of debate experience and an extensive judging record in both PF and LD, you can run whatever you want as long as you are showing me clear links, evidence, impacts and are adequately linking back into your VC. Even with LD being more of a morally weighted discussion, I still expect you to connect evidence to the logic you're providing in your case/speech. If you're not using clear cited evidence, at the very least I expect very very clear link and impact development about your points. Simply stating an impact is nothing without clear links. Clear analysis of your cards and of the presented arguments will make your job and my job way easier. I can flow any speed or style of speaking (as long as you can form coherent words) and it's up to you where to sit, to stand or sit for cross-fire, or any other variables in-round. I'm going to weigh everything you say objectively and it is up to you to tell me how to vote and why.

Ex-Captain, have done Policy and BQ. Familiar with all debates. Weber State Student.

Don't use slurs. Using them as an example is fine but do not use them offensively. Also don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or discriminatory in any way. I will give you the lowest speaker possible if I deem it to be offensive to your opponent. Cussing is allowed.

T's K's and spreading are alright with me. Don't do 14 off or anything wacky like that.

If your partner roasts your opponents or says something cool in cross, you will get 1 extra speaker point for yelling "WORLDSTAR" out loud.

Hello Debaters!

If you're reading this then you must have me as your judge. Depending on the event will depend on how I judge you. So please read carefully below. I'm the Head Coach at Viewmont HS and have been teaching and coaching for ~20 years. Debate has changed a lot over the amount of time I've been coaching and debating, and maybe not so much.

1) ADAPT TO YOUR JUDGE

Policy

I'm a Policy coach. I've been coaching Policy debaters to TOC/Nationals for nearly 2 decades. I've judged in TOC bid out rounds. I've judged quarter finals 3-0 panels Nationals rounds. I have a lot to say that about what I like to see in my Policy rounds:

a) Speed - doubt that many of you can go too fast. Don't worry about it you can go as fast as you want.

b) Conditionality - really don't like conditionality from the Neg. If the Aff. isn't allowed to kick out of the Aff case then why should you be allowed to kick out of your positions. If you have some good theory with voters about why I should allow Condo, that could work. Otherwise, don't try please.

c) Topicality - Earlier in the year, this could be an argument I listen to because plans may be less than topical. By the time we get around to February I have my doubts that the plan is not topical. If you're going to run this time suck of an argument it'd better be well reasoned out. If you kick this argument I'm likely not going to be happy.

d) Kritiks - Totally awesome arguments. I really love them. But if you run more than one of them I'm not going to be happy. I can only rethink one thing at a time.

e) Disad/Counterplans - Also great arguments that should be used in case you don't want to run Kritiks. Disad's could be run with Kritiks. Counterplans should NOT be run with Kritiks.

f) On Case - So, many people discount the power of on case arguments. Both sides. The Aff will get up and read a ton of great cards and then... nothing. The neg will get up and read a ton off case but do nothing to attack the case directly. So, most debates happen off case. Try solvency attacks. Those can be incredibly useful. When you're running K's, on case goes incredibly well with those.

g) Finally, Theory - Framework/theory... this is a very interesting and potentially abusive game played by both sides. It seems to be trying to force the opposite side into debating in a way that is only advantageous to one side. I will NEVER vote solely on theory but if it's legitimately NOT abusive and tied to the winning argument then it CAN work in your favor. Tread lightly.

Lincoln Douglas

LD is not single player Policy. You are not trying to come up with a plan to "solve" the resolution. You are also not trying to overspread your opponent. Your goal is not to destroy with theoretical nuclear war. Your resolutions are written in such a way as to give me something much different.

a) Cases - You case construction is important. You should have a value, criteria and 2 or 3 contentions. You may also have a few definitions before you start your contentions. This is more stylistic and for you than it is for me but keep it in mind.

b) Value is where I actually weigh the round. Many judges now may not do it that way but I do.

Evidence and logic are most persuasive for PF and LD debates, especially as they relate to overall efficiency and the greater good.

As for speech events, I look for confidence, speaking presence, and passion for your topic.

Good luck! :)

A pair of dimes walk into a bar. The bar tender says this looks like a joke.

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your next speech. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

I did Public Forum for 3 years in high school and am so excited to be back to judge!!

DO

• Speak clearly and loudly, my auditory processing isn't the greatest
• Use roadmaps and let me know where I should be flowing what you're saying
• Have sources to back up your points (If they have me judging an event that's not PF this one doesn't apply as much)
• Relax! You're going to do a better job, and it's going to make the vibes so much better for everyone.
• Ask good questions during cross. It will benefit you and make it more fun to watch for me.

DON'T

• Spread or spew
• Gender your opponent in round. This is one of my biggest icks and you will immediately lose speaker points (especially if you get it wrong).
• Interrupt too much during cross. If they're going on a tangent I don't care, but let them finish answering your questions please.
• Get too heated or upset. It's just a debate round, you'll live.
• Make too many jokes. I enjoy a little bit of humor, but I'm weighing the round on flow and the quality of your points, not how funny you are.

I will be flowing the round and judging who wins mostly on that. I'm not going to flow cross, but I will keep it in mind, especially if I need a tiebreaker. Overall just take a deep breath, be professional, and have fun!

My name is Gideon Martin, and I'm a Speech and Debate Judge with extensive experience on both sides.

Speech: I'm looking for great presentation, excellent vocabulary, and a clear understanding of your topic. Having a speech that is well structured and easy to follow is a huge plus. (If your competing in an event that requires sourcing, make sure that you properly source your speech. I can't believe any sort of statistics or information you give me if you don't have a source to back it up.)

Debate: Clear, logical, and well sourced arguments are what I'm looking for. Make sure your arguments/evidence are quantifiable. Prove to me that I should prefer your sources and evidence to your opponents, or that they outweigh your opponents arguments. Make sure that there is clash between your case and your opponent. I also want to be given clear voters. You need to tell me exactly why I should vote for your side. (Especially in Final Focus for all you pfers)

Ultimately I expect you to communicate persuasively and move the arguments forward. In policy I expect you to move the argument, explain the flow, and advocate for voters. I will vote on stock issues, topicality, solvency, counterplans, etc. based on where you push the argument and where your opponents push back. You can spread but realize I will likely ask for you to provide me the key cards so that I can read them in context--ensure you are properly using the text.

In LD realize that value and criterion will be key from which I will evaluate your persuasiveness of how you lay out the case. Do not ignore what your opponent says, rather address their arguments to refute them.

I am new to the world of speech and debate, but very excited to have the opportunity to learn more about each of the events through judging. When it comes to speech and debate, I am looking for students that are confident in themselves and their current ability level, no matter what that is. I want to see what makes you the best you, rather than feeling pinned to one format. I want you to feel like I am an approachable critic that is willing to see anything from a traditional debate to performance -- the round is yours to debate, the floor is yours to perform on. That being said, here are a few things that I concentrate on in my evaluations:

1. I enjoy humor, but prefer people being real. Don't try to be someone that you are not.
2. Bottom line is, I most commonly vote for the argument that wins the round.
3. There should be a consistent performance between partners throughout the entirety of team events.
4. I have no inherent issues with speed, however, I do with articulation and volume. You have something to say, allow me to hear and understand you while you speak. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.
5. My personal beliefs have very little to do with who or what I vote for.
6. I prefer well-structured debates. I also enjoy interesting debate structures.
7. I tend to favor creative interpretations, but would rather you don’t explain or provide a rationale for why your interpretation makes for a quality debate.
8. I award the best speaker in the round with the highest points. The best speaker is someone who demonstrates a strong understanding of the components within the round, how those components interact, and can express themselves in a clear and confident manner.
9. The broader the topic, the less interested I am, narrow it down and be specific.
10. Have fun! The more comfortable you are, the more it apparent it will be, and the more proficient you will be in your argument or performance.

.

Debate: When I debated in high school I mainly did pf. With that in mind if you are in policy or ld I may need some hand holding it’s your job to make the debate clear for me. I am fine with any argument you throw at me even if it is stupid as long as you’re able to prove it. I do value weighing, evidence, and links more than anything but if you don’t do that you can still win you just have to be better. Framework is also important.

Speech and Congress: I value organization, passion, flow, and uniqueness most. I do find that speech events do tend to be heavily biased based on content matter so I will try my best to judge objectively.

Background:

I debated for 3 years in high school, mainly focusing on LD. I debated in college at the University of Utah in Parli and LD. I understand the mechanisms in which debate functions, both on policy-oriented and critical arguments.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed, slow down on tag lines, repeat advocacies twice, I will clear you twice then drop my pen. Don’t spread your opponent out of the round.

Theory:

Don’t run frivolous theory, only run it if your engagement in the round is really at jeopardy. If you present a good enough reason for me to vote on theory, I will. I default to competing interpretations as a way to evaluate. If you want to go for reasonability give me a bright line as to what is reasonable and what isn’t. I use standards as a metric for measuring abuse in the round so be sure to do sufficient analysis on them. Be very thorough in your voters.

Kritiks:

I LOVE THEM; but do them well. Don’t run identity kritiks if it’s not your identity, unless you have a unique way of engaging in the discussion that doesn’t speak for others or co-opt. Don’t commodify identity arguments for the sake of a ballot. They matter, and have the power to change rhetoric and modes of engagement. If you run unconventional criticisms, explain them to me with an elementary thesis.

In/Out of Round Conduct:

USE TRIGGER WARNINGS- don’t even bring up sexual assault/slurs/violence/gore without one to everyone in the room.

Be nice, if you’re rude or shut down/silence your opponent it will reflect on your ballot, and possibly a comment to your coach. Debate should be a space where people feel comfortable to engage and develop new ways of thinking, treat it as such.

Underview:

Traditional is good, progressive is good, run theory well, run kritiks well, and be nice. I'll drop you for being problematic!

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

Tabula Rasa, for the most part. I will reject on my own truly absurd arguments, and I highly value analysis over just card-spewing.

Spread is fine; I did policy in high school and parliamentary debate in college. BUT if your tags are unclear and I don’t get them on the flow, they essentially don’t matter. I don’t share in the email chain of cards. It only matters what is delivered in the speech; I should not have to rely on an email chain to get some clarity about what you are talking about.

If you can’t spread clearly, don’t do it at all.

If you have any questions or want further explanation of my paradigm please ask before the round!

My Background:

I tried most events while I was in high school. My main events were PF (First Speaker) and NX

Speech:

For all speech events, the most important thing to me is an easy-to-follow structure and a professional and confident demeanor. For specifics about certain events please ask me before the round.

Debate:

I do flow and will vote on the flow. I do not flow cross, if something is said in cross that you would like to count for the round say it in a speech. It's ok to cut your opponent off in cross IF they're just trying to kill time with their answer. I don't like aggressive debate, there is a difference between aggressive and passionate. I'm only sort of familiar with debate lingo (I was mostly a speech kid) so don't go too crazy. I like framework and definition debates as long as they're not the main focus of the round.

LD:

I don't like progressive LD so don't try and bring in Policy-esque arguments. While evidence is good to have, I'm going to prioritize moral and logical arguments. If you have to make the round about evidence then you're not doing LD right.

PF:

I'll probably vote on weighed impacts. While this is an evidence-based debate, I still think logical arguments are important and just as valid as evidence. However, if there is evidence that contradicts a logical argument then the evidence will trump it. Please cite your cards in your speech and organize your speech in contentions, it makes the round so much easier to follow. And don't just spout cards off at me, explain your evidence. If you're going to disagree on definitions or framework try and address it as early as possible. TAKE TURNS IN CROSS! I don't mind moral arguments, but connect it to logic/evidence.

Policy:

I know the general idea of policy but not that much about it. So keep things as simple as you can. Don't just spout off a bunch of evidence and expect me to understand.

Congress:

Quality>Quantity. One really good speech is going to beat 3 meh speeches. Don't just repeat arguments said in previous speeches. Also include rebuttals in speeches. Ask applicable and argumentative questions. Be more civil than a typical debate round, but I don't mind a little bit of argumentativeness.

World Schools:

I have experience competing in world schools (3rd speaker) so I understand a lot of the unique parts of this event. I will be flowing, but I might not vote on it. I want to see points of agreement and the round should be treated as a discussion rather than a debate. Each speaker should stick to what their role entails.

Background: I did debate in high school (mostly PF and Interps, but I tried almost all the events). I coached for a tiny bit, and now I'm here to judge!

**Feel free to ask for clarification about any of the following at the beginning of the round.**

DEBATES-

PF: Be civil to each other. You won't win me over by being rude or disrespectful to your opponent, especially during cross ex. Remember to hit voters hard in your final focus. Don't go too progressive. This is PF, not policy.

Policy: Go slow. I did policy for only a little while as a novice, so I can follow, but I'm not an expert. Overexplain and try not to be too progressive.

LD:LD is the only event I haven't done personally, so I don't really know my preferences yet.

Congress: I prefer concrete policy suggestions instead of abstract theories (how could we really do this?). I like if you can think through potential intended and unintended consequences of your policy decisions.

SPEAKING-

Interps: Don't touch or look at each other. Don't touch the floor. Try to bring a full range of emotions.

Impromptu: Avoid filler words. Feel free to be literal or creative with the use of your topic.

Oratory: Show confidence. Be polished, but try not to be robotic in your delivery. Have some ebb and flow to the energy of your delivery.

Extemp: Give some background in addition to answering your question. Answer it thoroughly and insightfully. Have confidence and avoid filler words.

I competed in speech and debate in high school mainly competing in congress but tried a couple other events as well. When judging congress, clash is important to me, I want to hear rebuttal in your speech. I don’t like canned speeches, I want to hear you responding to arguments. It’s important to me that everyone plays fairly as well and is respectful to their opponents.