EMAIL: pattridg@asu.edu

Debate paradigm will be contextual to each form of debate. For positionality, I am a college speech coach (though I competed in high school debate and have judged debate at all levels of competition - it's just not my main thing), and I am a trans woman. If either of these things will bother you, strike me.

GENERAL: you may ask for any accommodations you like. Debate has historically upheld white supremacy, and making sure that rounds do not do that now requires active effort. Do not misgender me please, as me crying will probably not improve the round (unless it's a really good cry). The first time it happens, I won't drop you, but I will remind you. If you continue to misgender me, it will impact your ballot.

LD/Parli: spread is fine, love Ks, cool with Theory but actually tell me if you want me to vote on it. See below for "clear". I highly recommend explicitly stating how arguments link back to framework.

Policy: do whatever you want, but I reserve the right to say "clear" if I'm having trouble following, and will extend that right to both teams as well.

IPDA: fine with everything, but make sure your opponent is too. This is the kind of question to ask before prep starts, not after.

PF: don't flow through ink. Don't strawman your opponent's evidence or flow coverage (saying "they didn't address Contention 2 subpoint A" when they in fact did. You can tell me why they didn't address it in ways that mattered, and go in depth here, but don't conflate that with "they didn't address it"). The first time it happens, I will give you some leeway. The second time it happens, it will impact your speaker points. The third time it happens, you will be dropped. Clarity and clear links are valued.

Please speak clearly and not too fast so I am able to understand the point you are making.

• Evidence and Logic:

  • I value well-researched, credible evidence. Debaters should cite reputable sources and clearly explain their evidence.
  • Logical reasoning is essential. Arguments should be coherent and supported by sound analysis.

• Delivery:

  • Effective communication matters. Debaters should focus on clarity, tone, and engagement.
  • A compelling delivery enhances the impact of arguments. Use vocal variation, gestures, and eye contact.

• Resolution Engagement:

  • Debaters must directly address the topic. Arguments should relate to the resolution.
  • Weighing impacts and providing comparative analysis are crucial.

• Clash and Crossfire:

  • Clash drives the debate. Engage with opposing arguments.
  • Crossfire is an opportunity for clarification and challenge.

• No Personal Attacks:

  • Personal attacks are unacceptable. Debaters should focus on ideas, not individuals.
  • Maintain a respectful tone even during intense exchanges.

• Fairness and Sportsmanship:

  • Treat opponents with courtesy. Fair play is essential.
  • Avoid interrupting or talking over others.

• Adherence to Time Limits:
  • Debaters should respect time constraints. Concise speeches are appreciated.
  • Effective use of prep time is crucial.

Remember, a respectful and constructive debate environment benefits everyone. Let’s foster thoughtful discourse while upholding these principles!

I am a parent judge, please be polite and respectful.
Please make sure to not spread. Make concise arguments which are based in evidence and clearly explained arguments.

Speech & Delivery (10 points):

• Clarity and articulation of ideas.
• Effective use of voice modulation and tone.
• Engaging body language and gestures.
• Proper pacing and emphasis on key points.
• Overall presence and command of the audience.

Criterion & Contingents (10 points):

• Clear identification and adherence to the debate criterion.
• Solid understanding and application of relevant content.
• Effective organization and structure of arguments.
• Integration of logical reasoning and evidence.
• Adaptability to address contingencies and counterarguments.

Cross Examination and Rebuttal (10 points):

• Skillful questioning during cross-examination.
• Strategic and well-reasoned rebuttals.
• Effective refutation of opponent's arguments.
• Ability to think on feet and respond dynamically.
• Overall contribution to the depth and quality of the debate.

This paradigm aims to evaluate speakers comprehensively, considering both their communication skills and the substance of their arguments.

Email: kinan.cehajic@gmail.com

Anything enclosed by a "~" are not part of the flow/performance, just my intermittent notes. Specific paradigms listed below. Good luck!

PF, LD, CX, BQ

I'll disregard anything over a 10 second grace period. Put me in an email chain for CX, it's your call for LD. I'm okay with spreading so long as I can flow still it. You can call cards off-time. Flex prep, sitting, disclosure, etc. are all fine if all competitors agree.

Competed debate for 5 years, so do with that what you will. Can't believe I have to say this but, if you are in PF, do not run a K nor a plan. Both are fine for policy and LD. Non-topical Ks/plans are fine. If you give me an OTR, actually follow it. Good signposting will help. Please don't make me vote on extinction/nuke war. I don't mean you can't run it but if you lose to it, then you probably just didn't debate well. Cross won't generally be part of flow/RFD unless something is explicitly conceded, so put it in your next speech and I'll flow it. Give me a weighing mechanism in final speech if applicable, which it almost always is. Please don't make me go off my gut. Make it an easy round to judge.

DUO, DUET, HI, DI

I've competed in Duo and Duet, so I know some of the tech but I'm probably going to vote up whatever is more moving so if it's the funniest/most dramatic. Cleanly blocked sight lines, clear delivery of lines, and well timed pauses never hurt anyone.

OO

This is easily my favorite speech category. Below is a short paragraph on what I'm looking for:

I love an interesting topic but obviously that won't win you the round. Something different than usual is still appreciated and noted, though. First and foremost, I don't want your hook to go on too long, and make sure your hook actually transitions well into your piece. Choppy transitions to make a cheesy joke don't reflect well. Introduce your structure to me right at the beginning. I want to know what three points you're going to cover right away. Then, actually follow your structure and give me distinct transitions into the next body paragraph. Just walking to the other side of the room alone doesn't mean you transitioned. Don't give me personal anecdotes as your sole evidence for a trend you mention unless it's something that truly is universal human experience. When you wrap up with your call to action, make sure that it a) addresses your introductory hook and question, b) mentions your the topics of your three body paragraphs and c) is actually applicable and not general. The last point there is extremely important. I've seen too many well done OO's that bring me to a weak call to action that does not actually give the audience let alone average person an actual course of action they can take. An easy way to avoid this is by working in points that direct you towards a call to action throughout your speech.

This is not an exhaustive list and I'll add more guidelines as I think of them but the above are what I'll generally be voting off of.

INFO

I'm probably a lay judge here. I appreciate good boards/visual aids that are engaging but not too distracting. Don't make visuals the entire point of your presentation though. The main focal point should be the speaker.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

For all forms of debate, I am basically a flow judge. That being said if you spread too fast I will not be able to get parts of your case on to my flow. In the end, be logical, make good cases and be respectful.

I don't time off time road maps as long as they are quick and efficient.

This is my second time judging this school year, so please don't assume familiarity with the literature.

Spreading: I understand that the culture of debate may incline you to speak faster to present more points. However, if you speak too fast (i.e. spread), I will most likely not be able to understand you or remember what you said. I highly advise against spreading.

Speak clearly and enunciate important points. If I can't understand you, I am not flowing or following your arguments.

Speak up! Speaking too low means I'm going to struggle to hear your points.

Important: Explain to me why you win. I prefer that you strongly support your value/criterion and impact.

As an English teacher, I do my best to balance between the content of the argument and the conveyance of that argument. When looking at the evidence, the confidence, and the structure, all these can lead to a strong argument for either side.

I realize that most competitors are trained to talk fast to get as much points across. I do tend to take notes while both sides present. Because of this:

1. Speak clearly, do not speed.

2. I like empirical evidence. You will not win the round by becoming emotional.

3. Be respectful of each other. Let each other speak (especially during cross) and answer any questions that come up. I'm okay with being assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable.

Speech/LD coach 4 years; Policy debated in HS for 2 years at Brophy. Currently on the ASDCA subcommittee for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

I will hear any arguments, I enjoy creative/outside-the-box cases when supported well. I can handle spreading, but it must be clear, and tech can often ruin that clarity.

My hope for the round is that it does not become a card-war, but a thoughtful analysis of ideas in said cards. Please offer key voter analysis to conclude your speeches.

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

◾ I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly or you don’t get my vote.

◾ Don’t run any progressive arguments.

◾ Be polite and respectful. No hate of any kind will be tolerated.

◾ Falsified evidence of any kind will result in an immediate loss of my ballot.

• I'm not a fan of spreading. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I want to make sure I comprehend all aspects of your arguments.
• It's important to be respectful to each other.
• Signpost (tell me what argument you're responding to or what overall contention you're talking about) so that I can put your responses where they should go.
• Your points will come across more effectively if they're supported by ample evidence and reasoning.
• Be sure to relax, have fun and enjoy yourself - This is a learning process and you will learn a lot through this experience.

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

I am a lay judge. I will flow your debate arguments to the best of my ability, but it really helps me if you signpost well and refer back to yours and your opponent contentions.

Hi, I competed in speech for all four years of high school. I've now judged/coached for about 5 years! :) Here's what I have (in terms of my rules) to say about speech and debate:

For everyone: please don't try to shake my hand (it wont affect your score, i get its for being nice and thanking me for judging your round) but idk where your hands have been.

SPEECH: Have fun, don't be nervous, and do you best. I judge fully based off the performance. If you go over the grace period of your performance, cool, but like, know you can't be ranked the 1. I love topics of public health, healthcare, child/maternal health, and health equity.

DEBATE: I am a lay judge, however I've now been judging traditional debate for 3 years (mostly PF and LD, BQ, but I know it's not traditional debate lol). Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. If you want me to disclose, I can. However, I will not disclose during elimination/outrounds!

Please make sure you can take your own times! I will be taking my time from now on to make sure the round runs as fairly and efficiently.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I can understand your sources (Name, Date) plzzz

Have your cards ready and set to go, in case I want to see them!

Checking and reading cards is not a part of prep time, but if you go over like 2 1/2 min or more, I'll start counting it towards your prep time.

Have fun, be cool, make me laugh, you could get extra pts, idk (life is short, yolo). Also, no sexism, racism, or any kind of hatred because it will lead you into an auto-drop. ALSO, yes to the email chain! abhern12@asu.edu

CONGRESS: I love clash! Speak eloquently and loudly please! Answer all of your questions succinctly as you can during CX! If you make me laugh in the round, that could possibly help lol. Please keep the debate as creative and interesting towards the bills you want to pass. Repeating arguments are irrelevant, please always add a new/interesting point during your speeches :) Have fun too! :) (if u talk about public health, delivery of healthcare systems, access/utilization of healthcare, child/maternal health, or health inequity and disparities, maybe you might catch my eye and get ranked idk) ((public health is cool))

if you need my email for a email chain: catherinejiang10@gmail.com

The following is mostly stolen from Karsen Wahal, thanks Karsen!

PF debater for four years for BASIS Scottsdale.

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. PLEASE don't call for a lot a lot of evidence! Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

I'll time you guys sometimes if I'm in the mood, but if I don't, please time yourselves. 10 sec grace period.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

my own stuff:

i try my best to be a good judge, but please feel free to ask questions because i do miss stuff sometimes and i dont piece together some args until post round!

I am a parent judge. I very much prefer the traditional debate format and appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.

Spreading: I do not appreciate spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions. I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument but feel strongly that it is contingent on the debater to make a clear and compelling argument during the debate.

Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful of the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.

I'm a non-interventional judge. I like debates with meaningful arguments and don't encourage too much speed or aggressive tactics. I prefer quality over quantity. I'm going to be diligent in taking notes and watching for impact, flow, link, and rebuttal in the debates. I'm not a big fan of definitions as most of the time both sides are similar. I'd expect Cross to be focused on clarifying your opponent's points/cases but not as an opportunity to humiliate. I appreciate the summary at the end to clearly point out why your case is more weighted and why I should vote for you.

I wish you all the best!

1. Don't spread. You can speak slightly faster than average conversation speed. I cannot judge you if I cannot understand you.
2. I will be the official timekeeper. However, I strongly encourage each competitor to keep their own time. I may ask you for your remaining prep time. I will give 10 sec. grace period for any discrepancy in prep. time.
3. I am considered lay judge and does not have LD background. I have judged approximately 35 LD round during 2022-23 school year.

I am a parent judge. You can talk fast, try not spread. Clarity and volume are more important.

LD- I value analysis and reasoning especially in rebuttals. You should be able to understand and defend your case. Use logic and common sense. It is important to have relevant evidence, but it should be the application of the evidence into your overall case that wins the round. Questioning period (cross) should be utilized, and I will consider arguments from cross. Do not end questioning early. You can use it to get your opponent to admit something that works in the favor of your case.

I will most likely not disclose as I want time to think over the debate to make the fairest decision I can.

Do not be rude to your opponent.

Best luck!

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

• Have depth in understanding of the topic.
• Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
• Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
• Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
• Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

• Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
• Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
• Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

• Truth > Tech
• Argument Quality > Quantity
• Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

Hey y'all my name is Mia! (pronouns she/her)

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions/clarification/definitions about my paradigm! (back as a novice pfer my judge started throwing around the word "frontlining" and my partner and I were too nervous to ask what that even meant)

tldr: how to win my ballot? give me a convincing story about why your side matters more (key voters and world comparison are rly helpful tools to do this). I need important arguments that you think are key to you winning to be extended through the entire round to the last speech if you want me to consider them. 3 key things: extensions, evidence comparison, impact weighing. Lay out how I should be voting, so that the final decision is clear.

Background: One year of pf, 3 years of ld. I've debated on more traditional circuits (nsda nats), more progressive nat circ, and regular locals, so I am familiar with most styles of debating.

General Things:

-Evidence exchange is one of the most important parts of keeping debate fair, I'm all for asking for evidence off prep as long as it doesn't take a huge amount of time. Debaters sometimes drastically or incorrectly change the meaning of a card through paraphrasing or cutting, so if you're suspicious of a piece of evidence, you can ask me to call for it in a speech, or I may call to see it myself. If I find the evidence to be misconstrued, I won't consider it in the round. If your opponent can't produce the evidence, you can ask me to not consider it in the round.

-Extensions: these are pretty important to me in the flow; if you dont know what an extension is, it is the author, tag, and a bare minimum warrant/summary of an argument. Don't waste a really good case by not extending it through the round.

-Equity: i will not tolerate debaters making arguments that are very clearly problematic/offensive to a marginalized identity. If this happens in round, please call it out. I am willing to buy independent voters based off of this, however don't attempt to abuse or manipulate that stance.

Offense/Defense- ideally balance both. Offense to show how your opponent's world is worse than yours. Defense so you still have your own case by the end of the round to stand on

PF:

-good organization is much appreciated

-i like believable arguments over crazy exaggerated link chains, but as long as you can warrant it I’ll consider it

Policy:

-have done a bit of college policy, but not super familiar with the structure so bear with me, I am pretty familiar with this topic lit though, you can read ld paradigm for other things

LD:

quick prefs (in what I feel comfortable evaluating) :

1-trad/k affs/performance k

2-stock k, phil, t, theory

3-larp

4-pomo

5-tricks, skep triggers

In a trad round, I will first look at who wins on framework to see how I evaluate. If one person clearly wins the fw debate, I evaluate all impacts on the flow under that fw, (ie util), so fw debate matters. If the fw debate is a wash, then I'll just go to weighing impacts with ambiguous framing, if you don't go for fw especially do the impact weighing and key voter work for me. (You don't need to go for framework if you both agree on it).

I do not default to debate is a game, debate is anything you want it to be, *except* a space to be violent

I will vote for any argument even if it's out there, but arguments need warrants. I was a k debater myself, but mostly idpol (fem, border k etc), so that and traditional debate is what I'm most familiar with. I understand the concepts of most phil and theory but make sure I actually understand what you're saying, and don't be intentionally confusing.

I don't like tricks, frivolous theory, or super abusive multiple offs/spreading against people who very clearly can't handle it. I will not vote on you for this if this is all you have going for you. If I am your judge, you can ask me I consider your opponent to be doing any of these at any point in the debate for clarification/if you're confused what's going on.

I'm cool with flex prep. I'm heavily down with reps/discursive voters. Independent voters are fine. But most of all, I'm looking for clash, world comparison, and impact weighing. Each speech is a SPEECH, not a race to overwhelm your opponent, so tell me a convincing story of why your side wins and I'll probably vote for you.

Notes on spreading:

-if you're spreading without a doc, be very careful, I'm not the best at picking up things without a doc, I'll warn you with "slow" once or twice, even a doc with an outline/summary of what your analytics will be is helpful to follow

-that being said, I heavily prefer having a doc for everything if you'll be speaking fast

-even if i do have a doc, slow down on tags/analytics

notes from asu:

-quality>quantity arguments, much easier to buy something if it's well developed and actually makes sense

-please give me voters, u don't have to say "key voter" but ideally i should not be picking out what to vote on myself

-whatever happened to good analytics as rebuttals?

-extensions! pls!

-u have to try respond to ur opp's answers to the 1AC/NC, or else ur gonna be left without much of a case

-yes, add me to the chain (mlupica.debate@gmail.com)

I competed in LD for 4 years and so most arguments will be understood by me. Yet, that is not a free pass to run a load of crap. You still need good warrants.

Progressive is ok, I never ran it but I understand it. Just keep it realistic and respectful of your opponent.

Speed is fine, just share the doc with me and your opponent if you think it will be a problem

Keep everything civil and respectful, no need for personal attacks.

Any extra questions feel free to ask before the debate begins.

I do not flow cross, meaning you must bring it up in a rebuttal for me to weigh with it.

I will be timing everything so letting me know before you start prep, or asking if I am ready before giving a speech are two very important actions to take.

You need to tell me why things are why they are, pretend I am a neutral observer with 0 info on how arguments go together. Explain link chains, explain warrants, make your arguments. I will not connect things for you.

Also, key voters are one of my favorite things ever, so do those please.

I am a first time parent judge. Please speak loud and clear, explain your reasoning, and give impacts.No spreading.. Explain any of your opponent's violations clearly in layman terms. Also, please manage your time appropriately. Thank you very much and Good luck.

Please keep in mind, that I am new to judging

LD

Please talk slowly, so absolutely no spreading. I cannot understand your arguments if you speak too fast. I also do not know that much about advanced LD topics such as Kritik, so please do not use them in your cases. This is important: I also look at cross when deciding who won. Also explain your points fully. Be respectful, especially during cross. If you successfully refuted your opponent's framework, and told that, high chance it will be your win. If your opponent dropped an argument, please mention it. Also if opponent violated a rule or something, please also mention that.

IE

Please be interacting and speak slowly.

Hello to all Speech and Debate participants!

I am not worried about jargon or technical wording. I do ask that you consider defining the words as I am a proxy for society. Consider that if your audience/judges were 10 random people pulled from the street, what are the chance they would have an understanding of any jargon/technical wording you may be using. Please be mindful there.

To summarize, NO SPREADING. If you are spreading, I will need your case in order to follow along.

I will be listening and taking notes as best as I can. I do take notes on your contentions and evidence.

Please be weary of a higher speed of talking. While this is a competition and I know you have a lot to say, this should be preparing you as a public speaker. With that being said, I am an argument and style are equal type of person. The best debates I have judged always have a specific flair to them while maintaining high levels of argumentation.

As for running a K... I tend to lean on voting against Aff Ks unless they connect to the topic at hand. Yes, I understand there needs to be changes but simply telling us will not cause those changes. In the show business, you have to show us, not tell us. Set the example you want, relate it to your K ideals and then spend a small bit of time explaining the K. Show us, not tell us.

Please stay calm during your and do your best to not beat yourself up if you mess up. It happens to everyone.

Otherwise, do your best, have fun and listen for what you can learn from your opponents.

- I'm a lay judge, so please don't spread

- Traditional debate, phil arguments, and policy arguments (plans/counterplans) are all fine with the caveat that I will not vote on an argument if I don't understand it, so make sure to warrant and implicate everything well.

- Explain why the arguments you're making matter in the round. Saying "extend x card" means nothing to me if you don't tell me why I should vote on it. Key voters, impact weighing, and good crystallization are all very important to me in your last speech.

-

I'm a parent who has been judging for a couple of years, but still learning every time I do this. For LD, make it easy for me. Keep your own time and avoid spreading - I want to be able to understand and follow you. Numbering your contentions and sign posting help me greatly - I care a lot about this. Always tell me why you won and why I should vote for you - you may be able to convince me.

At this time, I have no stated paradigms.

I am a dual enrollment World History and U.S. History teacher, and adjunct faculty for Rio Salado College for twenty years. I am new to helping with Speech and Debate this year, but did Lincoln Douglas debate, Oratory, and Poetry when I was in high school.

I have no "paradigms" per se, except that I like competitors to speak as clearly as possible, and be respectful to me and other competitors.

I am a lay judge

What that specifically entails:

1. No spreading, no blippy arguments, no theory/K's, etc. Moreover, I put a huge emphasis on presentation skills and the ability to speak well/slow/confidently.

2. I need very very very clear warranting, clear link chains, and clear impact analysis. Assume that I am not super well versed in the topic so explain everything.

3. Absolutely no technical terms as there is a high chance I do not know what they mean. This, once again, emphasizes the need to explain everything.

General Paradigms:

I will be keeping time, but you should be timing yourself, as well.

I expect you to also keep your prep time but I will be keeping it just in case as well.

Please be friendly, respectful, and professional.

Debate Paradigms:

A little bit about me, I have been debating for 4 years and I went to nationals in BQ debate. I am currently attending college and I help teach middle school debate on the side. I think the most important thing about this event is being persuasive. You can tell me a million cards but if you don't explain their relevance or how it helps you I don't have a reason to believe it. Logic can also play a big part in the resolution so it would be advantageous to use it.

For construction speech be clear so I can hear what you are saying and write it all down. I am good with speed but do not spread.

I will be timing you and I'll allow a 5-10 sec grace period for all speeches but if you go over I will stop listening.

In rebuttal please address everything and make sure to sign-post so I know where you are on the flow. For me, I expect the AFF to rebut all of the NEG's points in the rebuttal speech. For the NEG I expect the same thing along with all the defense (I know it might seem unfair but I extend this responsibility of the defense to the AFF in the consolidation so it evens out).

For cross-fire please ask questions and don't use it as an opportunity to discuss your case. I do not flow this part of the debate so if you think you made a good point then say it in your next speech.

Make sure to flow through everything you deem important in the consolidation or I will not. I am okay with bringing up new evidence in the consolidation, especially for the AFF since this is your first speech for defense. For the NEG not as much unless the AFF brings in new rebuttals against your case (which really shouldn't happen). Consolidation is also a much shorter time so make sure to pick and only extend the main analysis, you should not be reading your case or cards that have been read in previous speeches as I have already heard them and you will also waste a lot of time. THIS IS NOT ANOTHER REBUTTAL SPEECH. I really want to see you responding with the defense and extending the warranting for your case instead of only focusing on attacking the other side.

For the last speech, I'll be looking for closing arguments. It is not enough to repeat your consolidation, please explain your points in the context of the resolution and relate your points back to the burden to show me why you think you should win. Please be clear and concise in your final speech so I can easily make my RDF. If I hear new evidence I will not include it in my decision and it may reflect poorly on you. Note I extend new evidence to include anything in your case or rebuttal that was not said in the consolidation (I am not too concerned if you say rephrase something in a card you extended in the consolidation, I am looking more at if you make an entirely new claim).

I don't think you need prep time to look at cards but obviously, if it takes you more than 30sec-1min then I will start timing you. This also means if you are the side providing the card it shouldn't take more than 30sec-1min to pull up the specific quote.

I'm not very strict about what I look for in speaker points but obviously, in a tie-breaker that could be a factor so if you do everything I asked for in my paradigms, I will give you the maximum amount. If you forget a couple of things or if your speech organization is a bit messy then I will dock some points.

Policy:

I have a very rough understanding of Policy, but I am still a flow judge so I will vote based off of the flow. The main thing I am looking for is solvency but other than that I can pretty much understand anything.

General Dislike:

These are my debate icks. Just don't do them.

please.

1. Yelling your speech when I am 5 feet away from you, pls calm down
2. Talking to your screen so that I can't hear you
3. lying about cards (which could make you lose the round)
4. lying about your opponent (like saying that they didn't respond to your points when you, me, and your opponent(s) know that they did)
5. using debate speech incorrectly
6. debater math
7. saying "I think this is wrong because.." + giving an opinion as a rebuttal
8. personal evidence
9. talking to your partner (or to yourself?) during your opponent's speech
10. leading questions or "do you agree?" questions
11. arguing after the round is over
12. packing up during your opponent's final speech
13. loud pen clicking
14. rolling eyes (try your best to control your emotions even if it is completely justified, and I will know when it is or isn't)
15. texting someone on your phone or laptop (I'm pretty sure it's not allowed as well)
16. angrily typing on your laptop
17. general disrespect to your opponent or to me

Hello,

My name is Niti Singhania. I am a lay judge. A couple of things to keep in mind:

- I would appreciate really clear arguments so I can understand what you are saying and in the end can vote for the winner.

- Please speak loud and clear. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing, raise my hand and let you know.

- No Spreading.

- Be civil and respectful towards your opponents. Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross.

Hello, my name is Rajin, this is my first year judging a PF and LD judge. You can consider me a lay judge. Make sure your arguments make sense, and please refrain from any negative remarks outside of resolution.

Hello debaters,

As a judge, I approach each round with a commitment to fairness, clarity, and a thorough evaluation of the arguments presented. As your judge, I value:

1. Clarity:

• Speak clearly at a conversational pace and

• organize your arguments logically.

2. Arguments:

• I value well-reasoned and impactful arguments.

• Be sure to support your contentions with evidence and logical analysis.

3. Cross Ex & Rebuttals:

• Effective cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your case. Use it wisely.

• Analyze and respond thoughtfully to your opponents' thoughts.

4. Framework:

• Establish a clear framework for evaluating the round

• Prioritize and weigh arguments under the framework.

• Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's.

Remember that the goal is to engage in a constructive and educational debate. Good luck, and let's have a great debate!

Recommend not to spread. I tend to take notes all along and if I am not taking notes, that means I am unable to follow your arguments.

Be respectful to everyone around you.

Hello, I am Naveen Thogati. This is my second-year judging novice LD. I prefer quality over quantity in your argument. I would request that you do not spread so it is easier for me to understand your arguments. Thank you.

I am a parent judge and new to LD.  It is important that debaters speak clearly and in a conversational speed.

Lay Judge. Prefer traditional. Please go slower. Looking to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

I am certainly not a tech judge, but I wouldn't say I'm exactly a lay judge either. I'm experienced enough to know how the events work, but I am no expert. That said, my greatest emphasis in a round is on the content of the arguments. I do not spend as much time thinking about technicalities as some judges; I prefer to focus on what is actually being said. Please look to the quality of your contentions and debate. That said, I'm not fluent in all the rules, so if your opponent violates a rule and I don't say something, please point it out.

It would be advisable to avoid spreading when I am judging. I can pick up most of what's being said (depending on your enunciation), but most is not enough to focus on the argumentation. Please rely on fundamentals and avoid cramming as much into your speaking as possible--go for quality, not quantity.

Finally, I am a stickler for respecting one's competitors. Keep things civil, and especially stay calm and treat your opponent like you would like to be spoken to. We are here to debate, after all, and not to argue.

Side note: I prefer not to disclose--my typed comments are a better representation of my feedback, and I don't like you as a debater to be focused on your wins and losses instead of your performance in rounds.

Beyond these relatively simple expectations, I am mostly here to see you do what you do well. Relax, have fun, and do your best.

I am a parent lay judge and like traditional debate. A few things I value in:

Congressional debate:

• clear logic, stats shouldn't overshadow your argument
• be engaged in the round, bring clash, address the most important issues
• signposting helps
• help me understand the bill and don’t expect me to already know what you’re talking about (this applies to all debaters in round, not just early round speakers)

LD debate:

• no spreading- clear and slow works better for me
• I prefer traditional arguments
• make sure your impacts are probable- not all impacts lead to nuclear war or extinction unless it is actually likely to occur

Both:

• be respectful, you can be aggressive without being rude
• if your opponent is twisting your words, make sure I know
• I pay attention to cross, ask questions to further your own argument

Good luck!

Be respectful to your opponent.

Philosophy: I approach LD debate with an open mind and value clarity, coherence, and well-grounded arguments. My background is not deeply rooted in debate theory, so I appreciate clear and accessible explanations. I believe in fostering a positive and educational environment for all debaters.

Flowing: I will do my best to flow the debate and follow the arguments. However, please make sure to signpost and clearly articulate the structure of your case to help me stay organized.

Speed: I prefer a moderate speaking pace. If you notice me struggling to keep up, consider slowing down, especially during crucial points or complex arguments.

Framework: Clearly establish your framework and provide reasons why it should be preferred. I appreciate a straightforward framework that guides the debate, making it easier for me to evaluate your arguments.

Content: Present your arguments logically and provide real-world applications when possible. I value substance over pure technicality. Avoid heavy jargon, but if necessary, explain terms to ensure clarity.

Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. A well-articulated clash helps me in determining the strength of your case.

Speak clearly and coherently

Must have a good case

Show passion in your arguments

Utilize the time effectively

Advice to complain less in the debate

Summarize the argument at the end with emphasize on the big points

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly.

Be polite and respectful.

Falsified evidence will result in an immediate loss of my ballot.

I value debates that establish strong links between evidences and claims.

Articulate the impact of your arguments.

Demonstrate adaptability during the debate, responding effectively to opponents' arguments.