I am a parent judge and I mostly judge PF but am familiar with debate structure and have been judging for a while. Please keep your own time.

I will flow everything in round except cross, so if something significant happens bring it up in the round and I will add it to my flow. Off time roadmaps are helpful, but please keep it brief.

I sometimes think the evidence read is weak or unrelated but if your opponent doesn’t challenge it, I likely won’t either. If evidence conflicts I will typically believe whichever one is more more convincing to a reasonable individual.

Two of the most important things to me as a judge are dropped arguments and impacts.

Please be nice, everyone is doing their best, if you are rude you will lose points. I appreciate kindness to your competitors especially in novice. It doesn’t matter to me if you sit or stand, nor does it matter how you dress. Be comfortable and have fun.

Good luck :)

Hi, I’m Frederick and I debated in both Public Forum and Congress for three years. State champ PF, went to nats in Congress.

Email: fchangho@asu.edu

Overall, pretty standard tech.

The easiest way to win my ballot is by having clear warranting throughout the debate. Evidence is great and all, but please have reasoning for WHY that evidence matters in the round. You need to be able to explain the logical progression in your link chains every time you mention your arguments. Don’t say NYT 19 and move on and expect me to go along with it.

Weigh. But make sure your link chain is intact and you’ve made clear extensions through the round.

Signposting is good. Organization is important.

If you get a concession in cross, bring it up in speech.

When possible, frontline in rebuttals.

No prep time for card reading is okay, but don’t take too long to pull up a card for your opponent to read. If there are card issues that you want me to look at, tell me to call for them too in speech. I will choose to view them at my discretion.

NO SPREADING.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponents. If I need to intervene b/c someone’s consistently talking over another in cross, you’ll be on pretty thin ice. Watch your own time. Watch your opponents’ time. Don’t talk during others’ speeches or make any rude gestures.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, but you don’t need to tell me what you’re doing in your first rebuttal for example.

Clash. Address opp’s arguments and explain to me how yours interact with theirs + why yours are better. Simple way to win.

PF-specific

PF’s intent is to be accessible to the average Joe. Don’t do anything that hinders that.

Generally tech>truth, but please don’t pull up with some nuke war argument that vaguely relates or anything else that requires a significantly unlikely chain of events.

I would rather vote for a well-warranted argument without an impact over a poorly-warranted one with a good impact.

Key voters are great for staying organized, but if you choose to do line-by-line just remember to signpost exceptionally well.

I don’t pay attention during cross. Unless something blatantly wrong happens.

LD-specific

Before I ever judged LD, I had only ever seen 3 LD debates. I’ll be able to follow along with your arguments, but progressive will be relatively difficult for me to evaluate in the scope of the round unless your warranting is pristine (which it should be anyway). Disads, CPs make the most sense to me. Topicality shells and K’s, somewhat. High risk, low reward if you run theory.

I'm a lay judge, so please speak slowly and articulate your words.

My vote is based mostly on weighing and the way you display your arguments.

LD

Paradigms are stupid, please don't be as well,
Many debaters rely on it, without it they sell,
And don't start off with "My case, their case",
because everyone thinks it's a waste.

Progressive is rubbish and dumb,
My ears have heard it all, they're numb.
The worst speak fast,
And yet their arguments are ass bad,

Now when deciding whether sit near,
you should have no fear
If your speech I cannot hear,
I will then yell "Clear!"

If still after three times,
Your speech is still mumbled,
Then because of this rhyme,
Your contentions will be fumbled.

Everyone around asks me,
"Do you flow cross?"
My answer is simple as can be,
Mention it in speech, else it's your loss!

Everyone sets up a doc,
And still no one can seem to block.
Countless cards are cut,
But in the end nothing is rebut.

But lets talk about the arguments,
Because I've heard them all,
Even though LD isn't my department,
Bring up non-topicality and you will fall.

Power tagging is distasteful, that's a fact,
Lying is wasteful, don't try this act,
Countless lies and debater-math,
Don't try anything funny, or face my wrath.

Your words alone can't be trusted,
Please cut cards properly, don't get busted.
Be nice to your opponents, don't abuse,
Honesty or not, what shall you use?

Some egos are too big,
I'm tired of hearing countless digs,
It's Speech and Debate,
Not impeach and hate.

For all intents and purposes,
This paradigm is mostly a joke.
Please don't report these verses,
or complain to your coach.

The real paradigm lies within,
Talent, abilities, and skill to win,
Trophies will line your shelf, in time,
Remember to have fun and unwind.

Policy

No progressive. Speed is fine, but you better be prepared to be clear and vocal, especially with your evidence. If you drop your syllables I will drop you. In all seriousness, if I have to say clear three times, I will stop flowing for that speech. Topicality is a must, refer to my LD paradigm.

I am absolutely and wholly unqualified to be judging policy debate, and yet it seems I get assigned this tournament after tournament. Please take this into account when coming into the round, there is no "bad judge, good judge", but rather any other judges, and me. I will have preconceptions and implicit bias, as we all do, take note. At the end of the day, I value debate skills and strategy over content, if that helps. I wish you the best of luck, you will need it.

Public Forum

The event's called Public Forum,
That's why you maintain decorum.
Follow the rules during debate,
If not then you won't break.

Don't lie to me, should be simple enough as a PF debater right? No inflated impacts, misattributed statistics, exaggerated tagging, etc. Easy!

Congress

I did Congressional debate for all four years of my time in the NSDA. Congress is unique in that competitors are able to discuss and advocate for change regarding issues that directly affect all of us in a debate format that's open and accessible. Whether new to the event or experienced, I look forward to seeing all your speeches out there on the circuit!

Baseline Expectations

Due to the fast paced nature of Congress, the speakers' evidence is often given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, every competitor's integrity is central to maintaining the trustworthiness of the overall event. This integrity is lost when evidence is fabricated, so it is expected that you've put in a reasonable amount of effort to ensure the credibility of the sources you cite in your speech. No, combining "NYT" with '22 does not make what you say more believable, contrary to popular belief.

How I Judge

I value strategy.

Too often enough in Congress, speeches with previously elaborated arguments are given again by another speaker. Congress is not just an event where one can expect to prepare speeches ahead of time and do well by giving them canned; you and your speeches must be adaptable. If you respond to or build upon others' speeches given before you and introduce new but relevant arguments, then you'll do well. If you completely shut down the other side's case for passing/failing the legislation, I will have no other choice than to rank you high!

You can be the most articulate, clear, well-spoken competitor out there, but if you do not strategically give your speech at the right time and address the right points of contention/speakers, your impact on debate will be minimal. This is why I believe that in Congress, all ought to be judged on how they strategize.

Do Not Under ANY Circumstance Do the Following (I've seen it all)

Not Paying Attention - Going up and saying in your speech saying "here's something NO other representative has brought up"... only to rehash something previously brought up. Shows you aren't paying attention.

Political Stupidity - Say something so politically inept like "Representative, why would China spy on its own citizens?" I wonder, why would an authoritarian government spy on its own citizens? Other things I've heard include: "Why would Putin lie about killing civilians?", "Isn't it the obligation of the US to provide aid to the world?", etc.

Putting Down Others to Be Different- Going up and saying "Rep. X falls flat when they say ____" or rebutting your own speech side for the sake of making yourself seem smarter is simply a waste of time, better spent focusing on yourself.

Refuse to Speak Until a Certain Cycle - Despite popular belief, speaking later in the round does not mean higher ranks. Judges only really care if you're rebutting and referring to the most important arguments in your cycle and if you clash properly. I've seen people go "I can give an X speech" when gauging the chamber's splits, only to refuse to speak and forcing the chamber to break cycle, which hinders everyone's experience. I will point this out to the judges, and they will rank you accordingly.

PO'ing

Our circuit is plagued by a chronic shortage of POs, to the point where you'll see a chamber full of competitors awkwardly staring at each other hoping that someone steps up and takes the gavel. You'll hear things such as "Oh I can PO but I haven't done it in a long time..." or "If someone POs now I can PO later...". Despite the long-held rumor that becoming the PO will ruin your ranking, this is far from the case, especially when I'm judging.

Remember, the Congressional debate national champion has been a PO for more than a few years in a row, how do you think they got there? Pure skill? Wrong. They PO'd.

If you PO and do it impartially, fairly, and efficiently, a high ranking will reflect your high performance.

My first time judging debates, I spent some time researching online for information on judging debates. It is important to me that a debate has a good delivery, a reasonable pace, and a good flow that explains solid arguments with logical reasoning and examples.

I am a parent judge. If you want to get your every point noticed, please do not speak too fast. Do not get aggressive. Be relaxed and be open to learn. Good luck and enjoy the event!

Respect is greatly important to me, I will not tolerate any disrespect among all parties. I will dock points for any condescending remarks.

I do not prefer spreading. Card reading should be 3 minutes max.

Take a breath, don't overstress, and most importantly have fun! I know you'll do great :)

Parent judge

Speak slowly and clearly, do not spread

Please be respectful and kind

Don't overuse debate terminology

Have evidence to support your claims

Good luck!

Here is my email for email chains: wenjiefan@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge with little to no experience. Assume I have no background knowledge about the topic you are discussing. I strongly prefer you to talk slowly and thoroughly explain your points.

Follow the debate rules, make strong arguments with supporting evidence and show your speaking skills. Be kind and diplomatic to your opponents.

Please remember, its not the end of the world if you lose a ballot.

I'm a former speech and debate kid, however I focused primarily on the speech side of things. I'm a little inexperienced when it comes to debate, so please be patient. I greatly value clear and direct language and civil discussion. In addition, I would really appreciate it if you didn't spread :).

This is my second year judging. Please don't use jargin and speak at conversational speed.

Experience: This marks my second year coaching speech and debate, during which I've had the opportunity to judge both Public Forum (PF) and Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debates at both the novice and varsity levels.

Preferences: In terms of delivery, clarity is of utmost importance to me. Whether it's the rate of delivery or tone, I value speeches that are comprehensible and clear. I want to be able to understand the content and points being made.

Note-taking: During the round, I focus on jotting down key arguments and major points made by each debater to better assess their overall argumentation and information at the round's conclusion.

Criteria for Evaluation: I weigh both argument and style equally in my evaluation. A speaker's presence is crucial, including their tone, volume, and use of body language. I appreciate clear and trackable transitions in arguments, avoiding a fragmented sound. The most compelling speakers, in my opinion, exhibit clear confidence, speak passionately, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic with well-sourced information.

Conduct Expectations: I expect a high level of respect between debaters. Attacking the argument is encouraged, but personal attacks or excessive aggression are not. Maintaining a focus on the substance of the debate rather than targeting opponents personally is essential for a positive round.

Time Keeping: While students typically manage their own time, I will also track it. I'll give a fist signal when students have reached the end of their time and count down from 10 during the grace period. If additional time cues are desired, students should inform me during the round.

Feel free to ask for clarification or additional details if needed!

Put me on the email chain: neha.gupta11@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging. I would prefer if you could talk clearly and slowly (AKA avoiding talking at the speed of light).I look for points that are supported with evidence, so stick with the facts. Lastly, I heavily weigh confidence and speaking style, so be mindful and be kind.

That being said , remember to have fun!!! All the best.

I am a parent judge.

Please make sure you speak clearly and not too fast so I can follow your argument and track the flow better.

Please explain terms that you think that might be helpful for a person that new to PF.

If I cannot comprehend your terms / arguments or follow your flow, I will not vote on it.

Please be respectful to your opponents. Don't be mean. There is a difference between being aggressive and being mean.

Don't lie or misconstrue your evidence.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge with limited experience. Please do not speak too quickly, so I can accurately flow your arguments and rebuttals. I review my notes at the end of each round to determine which arguments flow through and which arguments have been adequately blocked. I will not flow cross examination, so be certain to include any relevant points you want considered in your rebuttals. Be professional and respectful to everyone in the room.

I did speech and debate throughout high school, my experience mainly being in PF and BQ.

Please make it easy for me to understand what you are saying, I don't deal with spreading. I'll judge off what I flow, so if you speak too fast for me to understand/flow your speech, I won't weigh it into the ballot. Even if you give me a speech doc, I will likely miss some things if you spread. Speak quickly at your own risk. I don’t care about when you sit and stand, and I usually give a 5 second grace period. I also ask that debaters time their own prep.

PF: As I said above, I'll judge off what I flow. I want to think as little as possible during the round and when making my decision. That being said, try your best to organize your speeches and make your warrants/impacts clear. That makes it a lot easier for me when deciding what to vote on. The framework you run will also weigh in on my decision, so make sure to fulfill your burden and tell me why I should vote based off it. If you and your opponents have different frameworks, definitions, etc. make sure to argue why I should buy yours rather than theirs. Also, I don’t accept any theory in PF debate. If you run it, I will drop the argument.

BQ: Similar to the PF paradigm above. Take special note on my comment regarding frameworks and definitions. This is especially important for BQ, as I find rounds often come down to a definitions debate.

Hi! A little bit about me, my name's Chloe, and I'm a freshman at Johns Hopkins. I competed in PF and Impromptu throughout High School, and currently compete in Parliamentary Debate at the college level. I loved Speech and Debate in high school and am so excited to be your judge!

Here are my paradigms:

1) Be respectful to your partner, opponents, and judge at all times.

2) Try not to spread! I can likely flow it if you do, but if I miss something because you were talking too fast it's on you.

3) Show me that you actually understand the argument and its implications in the real world-- don't just cite statistics at me, explain why they matter.

4) How I Judge: I will flow all arguments from each side. If I decide the opponent adequately rebuts the argument, and no frontlining is provided to turn the rebuttal, that argument will no longer be considered in my decision/flow. In other words, if you rebut their rebuttal and do it well, your argument will be intact (and likely stronger).

5) Collapse! If the other team rebuts your contention and you have no good frontline/response to save the argument, collapse onto your strongest arguments that your competitors didn't interact with as much, and explain to me why you win the debate on those one or two arguments. Show me the bottom line.

6) WEIGH! I can not stress this enough, weighing is arguably the most important part of the debate, and often how I make my decision. Tell me here what factors I should be voting on in this round. Oftentimes, both sides can be correct in their arguments, so show me the arguments on both sides in comparison with one another, and why your argument creates the better, more realistic outcome/impacts.

And of course, have fun with it! Good luck!

I am a new judge and I would appreciate clear signposting and slow speaking.

Hello, My name is Autumn Kutsick, I competed on Northern Arizona University's Team for a year and a half. I have competed in Parli, IPDA, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and Oxford.

Questions on my paradigm or your ballots email: aj.kutsick@gmail.com

You may use the same email to include me in the evidence chain.

General:

1. Don't be a jerk, when it all ends debate is fun and you and your opponent should both learn something.
2. Please weigh your rounds and your impacts, I don't want to do it for you, it's your job to tell me why something is important and why you deserve the vote.
3. Definitions are important, if you are going to claim abuse on a definition tell me why and where it comes from. Don't just add on to definitions.
4. A plan that lacks solvency is not a plan, you must be able to show your plan will actually accomplish something.
5. Impact Calc is important!! If you want my ballot tell me why you deserve it!
6. Do not weigh impacts in an icky way, especially pfers. I will take you down on ethos if you make an argument that clearly ignores important values.
7. Dropped points are very important, especially if your opponent points it out.
8. Do not lie to me, or manipulate source material. I will not use outside information but if you outright lie I will drop the entire point and your speaks. This goes for purposefully misinterpreting and misconstruing cards as well.
9. Don't put words in your opponent's mouth, especially in the last speech. Listen and do not manipulate, using what they say against their case is fine but don't manipulate them to serve your purposes.
10. Speak clearly, I dislike spreading because I don't want to hear 3 pages of evidence I want to hear the logical conclusions you came to from your evidence. You must make arguments not just use your evidence as your argument. This is a sport that requires critical thinking and I want you to show me where you did that thinking.
11. Link your arguments, I don't need you to hold my hand through your case but I do need to see where you draw connections.
12. Currency and uniqueness are important, if your opponent has older evidence that is less important than newer evidence for the issue at hand point it out. Same with unique impacts, while all impacts are important social media isn't the only cause of body image problems, etc.
13. As being someone who did college parli I understand tech and am not lay, however, if you are going to run an out-of-the-box k it better be clear how everything links together.

Speeches:

1. Signpost, I need to be able to follow you for it to make it onto my flow.
2. Stay away from Ad Homonym attacks, these have no place in the education of any round. You and your opponent are both intelligent, show me that by clashing with their case not their personality.

Cross:

1. Yes, it is binding but less important if it isn't mentioned in the speech.
2. Don't be rude. Again this may be heated but no personal attacks.
3. Make sure there is actually a question, don't drone on where it is unclear to both your opponent and I what you are asking.
4. Statements made by those who are supposed to be asking a question will not be considered.
5. If you are going to cut your opponent off do it respectfully at a natural breaking point.

Counterplans (For Policy):

1. Must prove why they are better with less detrimental impacts. Please don't propose a counterplan without solvency.
2. With a counterplan it should still solve the problem completely. IE.) Don't give me a counterplan for the terrible treatment of prisoners in workplaces saying you are going to pay them minimum wage, this leaves out safety, training, etc.

Voters:

1. I vote on well-linked arguments if your plan solves everything but is poorly linked then the status quo outweighs.
2. Show me how your case is better, and what is more important.
3. Make sure the round weight comes back up at the end.
4. Tell me why I'm voting for you and show the impacts if I don't. Please don't make me do the dirty work.

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD if you stick around. Don't be afraid to ask questions and most of all have fun :)!

Hello,

This is my first year judging PF. Please speak legibly and maintain the logical order of the arguments. You will see me focused on taking notes over the course of debate.

Diversity in arguments supporting your case along with any available quantification is perceived positively as it reflects the amount of research and preparedness. Out of the box and/or quick analytical thinking aiding your case is always welcome!

It is important to me that the teams respect each other and maintain the decorum of debate.

Wish you the Best and have fun!

I am a first year "lay" judge and I am NOT a native English speaker. Hence, kindly avoid using over-the-top vocabulary (with more than 5 syllabuses) and speak slow enough at conversational speed.

Two thousand years ago, I competed on the Toastmasters (speech) circuit as a young person. So, I will pay special attention to each speaker's ability to explain the contentions and in turn will award individual speaker points.

It is my belief that good presentation skill is a prerequisite to good argumentative skill. If your delivery is choppy and messy, I will likely NOT vote for your team. During the cross, avoid using language a lay judge will not understand. For example; If you say "cross-apply the turn on the de-link on their C1 , which triggers solvency for our terminal impact on C2."???? I will have NO clue what you are saying and I will vote for your opponents IMMEDIATELY.

Remember: If I can't understand your contentions/arguments, I can't vote for you.

Other comments:

- Brownie points for a case with numerical impacts. I love numbers.

- Be respectful, please do not yell during Cross (I'm not deaf, at least....not yet)

- Chill, have loads of FUN and not get too stressed over the results.

Hello! First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm. If you have the time, please read the sections that are important to you. My paradigm is broken up by events, and each section will include my preferences and general thoughts on how the round should go. Each section will include a TLDR if you don't have time for whatever reason and it's right before the round, but otherwise PLEASE read the entire thing!

VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW; TLDR

I competed for three years in Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, extemporaneous speaking, and Impromptu speaking. For two of those years, I personally coached many in extemp, impromptu, and public forum while also helping others in congress. If you have me for any of the ad libs events, congress, or pf, these are my strong suits and I hope you like me better than your average parent judge who has never competed themselves. I as a judge will work to accommodate you while maintaining the integrity of the round and the sprit of speech and debate. i.e - If you need a minute before the round starts to take a breath or get a drink of water, please inform me and feel free. I was there not too long ago myself. Finally, speech and debate is about growing your skills as a speaker, a debater, and growing yourself as a person. Not winning. With that being said have fun, and just be respectful of others!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

TLDR; I know what congress is (for the most part).

Full version

I was in house finals at nationals.

PUBLIC FORUM;

TLDR; I know how to flow tech debate, but I like it when you make good arguments that are backed by a solid logical link chain in a more of a lay appeal style. DO NOT SPREAD. I can understand spreading (mostly), but I can understand your speech better if you do not spread and you explain everything in a logical manner, not just trying to spit out as many words as you can in a minute. If you start speaking too fast, I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Just rhetoric won't get you very far either, actually interact with your opponents arguments and WEIGH them against your own.

Full version

Speech and debate is meant to make you better at debating and speaking. I do not like spreading at all. I understand speaking slightly faster than normal in order to get all of your points in (more so if your in summary or FF), but you should not spread. Public forum is supposed to be PUBLIC FORUM, it was originally a "laymans" form of debate, in which someone off the street should be able to judge your round with reasonable competency. I am well aware that the debate space is all about inclusion, however spreading in public forum if anything makes the debate inaccessible to those who can not understand spreading (either opponents or the judges). If you start spreading too much I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Same thing goes for theory, don't do it in PF. If it's a local tournament, 99% chance there is no reason to be running theory in PF. If you really feel you have to in pf, in my round, my understanding of theory is minimal in comparison to someone who spent three years doing LD. Chances are I won't be able to understand it for the most part, and if it comes down to a technical level I probably won't weigh/vote on it. If you have to read theory, first ask me if I'm okay with it in the round. If you just start reading it off, especially in the first or second speech (without asking me), I'll just drop it. In crossfire look at the judge so things don't get heated. Be respectful of each other, but also be assertive. I don't weigh crossfire unless you get a concession or have an important point to make, however you have to bring it up crossfire in speeches for me to weigh it. In general, if your respectful, there should be zero issues. Next, I want to see actual interaction in the round between you and your opponents arguments. Simply giving me endless rhetoric or restating your case won't get you far if you don't respond to the uniqueness of your opponents arguments and how they WEIGH against your own. PLEASE WEIGH in summary and final focus, and if possible do so in rebuttal. Make the vote for me as a judge easy to make, tell me why your side should win the debate comprehensively. I go off the flow, I'm mostly tech over truth unless you straight up lie. Lastly, have fun! Time goes by fast, and debate is something that should be fun and propel you in your future endeavors.

Extemp. (to be updated very soon)

Impromptu (to be updated very soon)

All other debate formats, and IE events will be updated very soon!

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 am a parentjudge

I prefer eye contact (you may get extra speaker points)

Do not yell at each other

Do not go to fast

Do not go over time ⏰ more than 7 sec (possibly minus points)

Let's enjoy this !!

I appreciate a civil debate and no cutting each other off during cross.

I will be taking notes and flowing the round, my decision will be based on that, however, I am a parent judge so bear that in mind.

Good luck!

I am a first-time judge for public forum debate. I am okay if you speak slightly fast but make sure you are clear so your opponents and judge can understand. Apart from that, I want rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses to be cleanly formatted by using signposting and an off-time roadmap.

I prefer to hear a few well developed arguments, delivered with clarity, rather than a mass of contentions delivered at an unintelligible rate. Debate the topic and refrain from Plans as they often tend to skirt the issue. Please avoid speaking over your opponent during Cross. I tend to weigh impacts rather heavily and I will consider the flow, however it will not be the sole factor in determining the round.

Please send the files that you have to this email address: alinikahd32@gmail.com. I competed in Policy Debate for four years and in Congress for two years, so I'm very familiar with debate.

Congress: I'll try to evaluate 60% of your performance on the basis of argumentation skills (refutation) and 40% based on presentation skills (eye contact, hand gestures, etc.). Engage with other arguments in the round and avoid rehash of arguments. Try to weigh your arguments as we move forward into the debate. You should aim to speak at different points of the debate in a session. In order to stand out in the round, you should aim to convey a sense of authenticity in this type of debate. The "teacher voice" in Congress has become timeworn, and I really prefer a new type of expression that can actually connect with people in the real world.

Policy: You can run whatever you'd like: DAs, CPs, Ks, etc. I'm fine with spreading in policy, but please be coherent and slow down as you approach taglines. Make sure you signpost as you're going between on-case and off-case (notify me when you switch to DAs, CPs, etc.). You should also have brief overviews that properly represent what the authors of your cards try to articulate. I've seen students often times struggle understanding or explaining Ks in the debate, if that's the case, then just stick with traditional policy debate. Use your last rebuttal speeches to flesh out your arguments and weigh your impacts.

PF/BQ: I haven't competed in these two events, so I'm not too familiar with the specific structures of these debates. I'll be evaluating your arguments primarily based on refutation and the weighing of impacts. I really don't care about your presentation as much as the substance of your arguments. It's also essential there be a clash in the debate.

Have fun with this debate! :) I prefer people to speak slowly. No spreading I have difficulty hearing, if I can't understand what you are saying it won't help you. I am not familiar with debate jargon. Be respectful, while this is a debate, it is a civil debate. Uncivil arguing will not be tolerated. Don't be aggressive. I would be considered a lay judge.

For my paradigms, I prefer a clear-speaking voice so I can understand your argument, don't go way over time, and you can talk fast or slow just as long as I can understand your argument.

Updated 9/1/24 for Scottsdale Prep

Welcome back and I am anticipating another engaging year of congressional debate. Arizona has a well earned reputation for excellence in congressional debate and I look forward to continuing that excellence this year.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Taurasi esque or Clark esque. So, I ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make by top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.
2. First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.
3. Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.
4. End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you mee the burden.
5. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.

BONUS INFO

1. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos "the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
2. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

3. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

4. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal, I strongly urge all congressional debater to review these paradigms from former elite congressional debaters who are now elite judges of congressional debate.

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

I am a first year judge so I am relying on you to run the debate and keep time.

As a team, please introduce yourself to me. Let me know your full name, school and which side of the debate you are on so that I can make sure I score correctly to the right people/team.

Please speak clearly and at a good volume during the debate. It is ok to talk with some pace, but talking super fast plus and/or soft plus and/or mumbling will make it hard for me to understand you.

Clearly connect the dots for me with your arguments and evidence. Same for rebuttal. Be direct and clear so I can understand points and counter-points. Keep points clear and simple for me to understand. Quality and clarity carries more weight than quantity of points trying to be made.

Be polite and respectful to each other. Have fun

I debated for a year but it’s been a while, so I would prefer no spreading.

Don’t waste time talking about things that don’t correlate to your main contention, try to stay on topic please!

I vote for people who consistently flow arguments throughout the debate, as much as I value evidence, it’s important to emphasize the importance of certain cards.

Absolutely do not be rude during any point in the round.

Cross isn’t too important to me in terms of proving the opposing side wrong, just keep your cool and act like you know what you’re talking about.

Be nice and confident :)

This is my second time judging any type of debate event. My daughter does public forum so I’m more familiar with that style of debating. I have a good general idea of how both PF and BQ works in terms of round format.

• Speak slow enough that I have time to write down your key arguments. If it’s not on my flow, I can’t vote on it.
• BE POLITE. If I hear you yelling or raising your voices at your opponents that automatically makes me biased towards your opponents. I am not likely to give you the ballot if you are talking over your opponent, interrupting them, or in any way directly arguing with each other. Please keep it civil and respectful.
• Be careful about using tech-y terminology. I know some terms, but I may not be familiar with more advanced rhetoric so always explain what you mean.
• If you don’t see me writing, or at the very least nodding, I’m not following what you’re saying, and you need to either make it clearer or explain what you’re arguing in a more conducive way for me to be able to evaluate it.

I value clean, respectful debate where the individuals and teams debating respect each other, their selves, the topics they are debating, and humanity in general.

I am a retired corporate lawyer and federal prosecutor with extensive litigation experience, and I am currently a volunteer coach for both mock trial and debate. I debated in both High School (Glendora CA) and college (Emory U in Atlanta GA). I prefer clarity, solid reasoning and courteous, civil direct clash on contentions. I am not a fan of speed reading, and prefer artful persuasion. I'll try to flow the debate but rely upon speakers to signpost their major contentions and highlight differences from their opponents.

No spreading. I look for clear and concise arguments backed with evidence.

I'm a parent judge and both of my kids have done PF debate. I am an engineer by profession and worked for 15 years in large corporations in executive role, now I have been an entrepreneur for the past 10 years. My main thing is that if I can't hear you clearly, I can't evaluate your arguments. Speak clearly and be respectful to other team.

I am a parent judge, and I am fairly new to judging speech and debate.

Speech
Speak clearly. Ensure your character transitions are distinguishable and breakouts identifiable.
I value a speech that keeps me engaged.

Debate
Speak clearly. Do not spread.
Be respectful. Do not yell or be abusive.
Identify contentions clearly. Number them so that I can keep track. Use signposting. Stay organized.

I am open to most arguments as long as the supporting evidence is clear and the link from your arguments to the conclusion you make is well-defined. Avoid spreading; if I can’t understand your words, I cannot be swayed by them.

Maintaining a respectful attitude while delivering responses is an essential part of debate and is expected.

Do your best and don't forget to have fun!

Hi! I am a new coach to speech and debate so I am still learning the ropes. The only paradigms I have are to speak loudly and clearly during your round. I can only judge what I can hear!

Hello! I am new judge.

Please speak SLOW. I need to be able to understand what is going on in the round so please make sure to be engaging and speak clearly and loudly.

Please be sure to keep track of your own time after every speech/crossfire.

Please be very respectful to me and your opponents.

I look forward to being your judge.

Thank you!

1. Be respectful: I know you have all worked very hard and can be very passionate but treat each other with respect. Sexist, racist, bigoted and hateful speech will not be tolerated and you will lose.
2. I am trained in science and prefer the most precise, organized, and supported ideas as opposed to any voluminous, shock and awe approaches.
3. Please remember you are trying to convince the judges not the other team. So please do use a well described framework with numbers and signposts so we can follow along appropriately.
4. Please do not spread. If you are struggling to have enough time to present all arguments in a conversational pace, than I will likely find it difficult to follow.
5. I hope you have fun.

This is my third time as a judge. As a teacher, I prefer people who speak clearly and slowly in an organized manner. You don't have to yell to get your point across. Also, I vote based on impact.

Do what you need to do to win.

Unless the debate is about nuclear war, total world destruction is hard to get behind.

I will attempt to flow debate rounds. Clarity of your claims, warrants, evidence, and impacts will score you higher. Spreading only undermines clarity so please speak clearly at a normal conversational pace. Less is more.

Off-time roadmaps and signposting are totally acceptable and help me follow your logical construction.

Use Crossfire periods in Public Forum to gather clarifying information, not to further argue or press a point. I will not be paying attention to what is said during those periods unless I deem debate ethics are being violated.

Simply put, I like facts, solid logic, and clear presentation.

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

I have a student that does debate so I know the flow of the debate and how rounds are supposed to go. I am a tech judge and will flow the round to the best of my abilities. Speaking fast will only make me put down my pen and wait for you to finish speaking. if you speak fast normally let me know before your speech and I will most likely raise my hand to signal you to slow down.

This is my first year judging; talk at a relatively slow pace. Speaking clearly and concisely is better than speaking loudly and vigorously.

I judge tech over truth, but let's be reasonable. Misusing evidences can make you lose.

Be confident and perform as you prepared, but have respect for your opponents.

Extend your arguments through summary and final focus or I won't consider them.

In Final Focus and Summary, make it clear what the main contentions are left in the debate and why I should vote for you.