Experience: I have competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years in highschool. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

As a judge I will look more on terms of argument strength /proven evidence towards supporting the arguments, and the way you deliver your stance and confidence on the speech.
I strongly encourage debaters to time themselves (I won't be timing) while they speak and deliver the argument clearly.

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 300 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE!I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED.The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct.

3. As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

4. Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

I have primarily been around Lincoln Douglas Debate so that is what my paradigm is geared towards. I like to see clash with value and value criterion debate; don't forget your value in the round. Pull everything back to your framework including your rebuttals. If you run theory run it well; I don't prefer a round based on theory but I am open to it if you can run it correctly. Make sure to state your impacts as I weigh them heavily when deciding the winner of the round.

For all debate types please be respectful of your opponent in cross ex and during round. Run your arguments clearly and have fun!

I am a former LD debater and I really like studying and discussing moral and political philosophy.

I prefer that competitors speak at conversational or slightly faster paces. I consider a value and criterion as essential to presenting a strong LD case--the value and criterion should frame and guide a debater's arguments and they indicate to me a broader recognition of why the topic is being discussed at all. LD's uniqueness (relative to policy debate) is that it is a debate of ethics and morality (which policy implications can be linked to)...LD gets to be a discussion not limited to questions of what is feasible but also what should be possible ( though yes, the former may and arguably should inform the latter).

I like voters given.

Your arguments should feel like your own. And when it is your turn to speak, be secure in yourself, your logic, and your delivery. Try to enjoy the round and be respectful of your opponent.

I am a relatively new judge.

Hi, nice to meet you. My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical, business, and tech. I've been judging debate for 7 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.

Judging Preferences:

- I appreciate a strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I prefer when an argument is backed up with factual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for - Please DO NOT repeat the entire debate.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.

email: colewogan@gmail.com add me to email chain

Graduated HS in 2021, 4 years of poli experience, 2 years of light parli experience .

Parli Paradigm:

Do comparative analysis. Parli debates are won and lost not based on the individual strengths of y'alls' arguments, they are won and lost based on how well you can convince me that for XY or Z reason your argument outweighs, modifies, or what have you the opponents argument. Points of information are reasonable, just don't abuse them. Same goes for responding to POIs -- I tend to dock speaks if you never answer any POIs; it's bad optics. Points of order can be a creative and fun way to win the round. Don't be afraid to make them.

Parli K debate: I will evaluate these rounds fairly, but the link chain needs to be solid for me to weigh the K, especially considering most Parli K teams have blocks that they apply regardless of the topic. That's not to say that there aren't specific links, you just have to apply your arguments to the topic, don't expect me to do it for you. Will vote either way on FW.

Policy Paradigm:

4 year 2a who mixed between policy (typically soft left) affs and k affs. Will give all args the light of day of course, but it's probably important for me to note that I am far more familiar with K-stuff and theory, so if you are going for traditional policy args like a DA + CP articulate the link chain VERY clearly, with specific links to their aff, not just [generic politics link] [generic extinction impact].

K debate:

Obligatory try to mitigate the overview as much as possible. I get it, your overview is the most gorgeously written diatribe you've ever written, but it probably isn't all that applicable, or, if it is, can be split up throughout the line by line. I'm not opposed to an overview, in fact in a lot of ways I think it's very important to have, but if it's going longer than 1min, you're probably overdoing it.

Don't assume I know the critical theory you're reading from -- I might have been familiar with this stuff in the past, but my memory isn't all that great, so err on the side of overexplaining. Link turns as a K-debater are your best friend, and a good one can go a loooong way.

For K-affs, I would say I am solidly middle of the road on the FW question, so if you're a policy team absolutely go for it, and if at all possible a TVA is pretty helpful IMO. I like good FW debates, the generic our specific aff education versus generic limits setting is quite trite.

Other:

I highly encourage you to go for theory (especially T or ASPEC) , or at the very least extend it past the 1nr - in my experience most teams don't know what they're doing and will just read and re-read their 2ac theory blocks.

Also, extend case in the block lmao.