For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics since 2011.
• I judge on state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa (clean slate) approach.
• When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used for substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

Harrison Cook

Judging Paradigm

Experience- I was a debater in High School on the Texas UIL circuit and am now on the Arkansas State University Debate Team. I have competed in LD, Congress, NPDA, and IPDA debate.

Philosophy- I look for a few things in rounds:

1. Clarity - Make it clear to me what you are arguing and how it applies to the resolution/case/etc.

2. Fulfillment of Burdens - In IPDA and LD rounds, I look to make sure that the two parties have fulfilled their burdens as a part of my decision. The burdens I observe are as follows:

a. Affirmative - You have the Burden of Proof. You must make your case and then provide either evidential or prudential evidence as to why your case is superior. Prefer no apriori warrants.

b. Negative - You have the Burden of Clash. You need to make it clear that you are attacking your opponent’s case either directly/CP/etc.

3. Remember to HAVE FUN – Debate is a game, have fun and do your best!

Speed- 9/10 Speed doesn’t bother me much. Make sure to clearly organize and slow down a tad for signposting. I want to make sure I have everything organized in my flow, so I can be as fair as possible.

Speaker Points- I award speaker points using the following rubric:

0-10: You have maybe introduced the topic and then proceeded to talk about something else entirely. I will never give this low of speaker points in a debate round.

10-15: Gave a speech. The organization wasn’t all there, and you didn’t respond to arguments clearly at all.

15-20: Gave a speech and had some organization. Clarity is lacking.

20-25: Gave a good speech with organization. Clear in your responses to your opponent’s argument.

25-30: Excellent speech. Showed a clear understanding of the topic and was very well organized. Good clarity throughout.

Please don't spread. I'm a bit hard of hearing and if I cannot understand you, you might as well have said nothing at all. If you provide me a copy of your case, I can read fast enough to keep up if you are not confident that you can keep from spreading. Speak clearly and with confidence.

I tend to choose a winner based on the quality of the evidence presented as well as the quality of the presentation. I prefer leaning into facts over feelings: emotional ploys will not earn you points with me. Bonus points if you can catch a logical fallacy and properly name and explain how it occurred in your opponent's argument. An appropriately detected fallacy can completely undermine an argument.

Proper use of non-verbal communication is expected, i.e. eye contact, hand gestures, vocal intonation, and facial expression.

Do not drop points of contention and be sure to tie in your value statement.

Time management is important. If you are severely under or over time, it can hamper your presentation in a negative way. Not taking enough time may present weak/ill thought out arguments and going overtime does not value the time of your opponent and judge.

Be respectful and attack the argument and not your opponent. Nothing will lose you a debate faster than name calling or insulting the character of your opponent.

Please enjoy yourselves and have fun!

I was 4-year policy debater in Kansas that dabbled in PFD and LD occasionally in high school. I currently debate for the University of Arkansas in IPDA.

Policy: I am used to rounds at any speed level and can judge about any argument in policy. All I stress is that you run what you feel is your best option that you understand and feel comfortable arguing. Don't run a K just to run one, make it matter in the round! I will vote on any arg (T, CP, Condo, K's, Framework, etc.). I'm probably a little more tech over truth but both matter quite a bit to me.

Other Debate Events: Use your lay skills here! I will definitely be flowing but I care more about your analysis of evidence and arguments and how they relate to your position under the resolution.

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Christina Smith

Arkansas State University

Mainly an IPDA Debater but has PF and Congress experience

General

When looking at debates, I love clash. I believe that one of the main focuses of debate is a good clash, that way you see an actual debate going on. This can go for both Congress and PF.

When debating, always make sure that your arguments are clear and go down line by line, that way I can flow easier which will help me judge your round better. If your impacts are major to your case, make them seem important. If the number of cards is major to your case, make them seem important. I’d hate to look past them.

When looking at speaks, if you can speak loud and proud and add emphasis to your speaking, then you're almost guaranteed good speaks. I am not a fan of robotic, blunt-speaking because I will zone out real fast.

I also have zero tolerance for disrespect. In some instances, you can be aggressive to your opponent, however, if you step over the line and insult or show disrespect to them in any way, it will reflect on your speaks. While I know debate can get loud, it also needs to be civil.

IPDA

On the collegiate level, I mostly focus on IPDA, so IPDA is an expertise of mine. My paradigm for IPDA really reflects what I look for in both Congress and PF. So just read below.

PF

If Congress was eradicated from existence, then my go-to would be PF. I enjoy PF a lot, mainly because it makes us discuss topics that you wouldn’t usually talk about. That being said, please be sure to provide definitions and frameworks within your case. Not only does it inform me and others about the topic, but your framework helps me decide on who I should vote for, depending on which side shows that they fit the framework better. That means that you should always emphasize your impacts within the debate. I can agree that framework is in no way the most important, and please do not have a framework debate, but it’d be nice to have it included. In summary, you should always weigh out your impacts and go over the arguments that were spoken throughout the debate. The final Focus should be mainly on voters, that way I can vote more effectively.

When it comes to cx, as I have said before, the clash is key. That being said, I mainly prefer open cross, that way there’s more possibility of the clash. You don’t have to do an open clash, but it’s preferable.

Please do not spread either. Not only is that disrespectful to your opponents, but I can’t flow, meaning I can’t judge.

Congress

There are not many paradigms for Congress I have, as my paradigms most closely follow PF, but all I ask for congress is to have clear points within your speech and be sure to speak well. And please, for the love of anything religious, don't repeat arguments. I don't want to fall asleep during your session.

Jasmine Turnage

Arkansas State University - Jonesboro

Cabot High School Alumni

Mainly a PF/Congress Debater

tech > truth (in most cases)

hey guys! just a quick introduction- i’ve done multiple types of debate, barring LD, but i focus on PF and congress. I’m a recent grad from cabot high school where i was varsity pf captain and had competed in debate since freshman year. For the most part, you guys just do what you feel necessary within the round & everything will be groovy. If you want specifics, read below under the events.

General

I don't have a problem with aggressive, loud spoken debaters. I tend to be "aggressive" when arguing myself. BUT, always be respectful to everyone in the round. You don't need to talk over each other in cross. I love some good clash, but both teams yelling at each other doesn't impress me in the least.

For the most part I’m a flow judge, but I’m not going to flow the round for you. You tell me what you want on my flow and that’s what’ll be on the paper. ex: if you want me to cross-apply your answers, tell me. Im not here to assume.

Impact your arguments out -- make sure to weigh them against your opponents impact.

You should have a clear line by line. Reference cards if I need to pay attention to them.

Make sure to point out link/case turns.

speed is fine, but make sure it’s appropriate for the event.

i am tech> truth for the most part

Definitely give me voters & weighing. Otherwise, you leave it completely open for me to interpret what to vote off of - and that might end up in your favor & it might not.

Don't be rude, be respectful to judges/teammates/opponents/spectators. We're all here to have fun. If you're rude, disrespectful, or anything along those lines - your speaks will reflect that.

***Any disrespectfulness within the round towards anyone present will not be tolerated

Please check for your opponents pronouns before the round- and if they point them out, make sure to address them appropriately.

PF

I enjoy good, fun PF debates almost as much as I love Dr. Pepper. I'll judge on whatever you want - you guys just do what you think is best. If you use a framework, make sure to tie your arguments back to it and use it throughout the round. Again, make sure to line by line and point out things you want me to put on my flow. Extend arguments throughout the debate, make sure to weigh impacts. Summary should be the point where you articulate the most important arguments and start getting into some serious weighing. Final Focus should be voters and some final weighing.

If there are any conflicts with evidence, I'll call for the card. It shouldn't take you ten minutes to find it. You need evidence to prove what your saying, but keep in mind that analytics are pretty powerful too.

CX

I did policy for a year, so I understand the basics of it. My input on that is to run what you think you can do the best at. It’s been a hot minute since i’ve done policy, so bear with me. If you’re wanting some all knowing policy god, it’s probably best that you strike me as a judge if you can.

I want to be on the email chain -- turnaj1@cps.k12.ar.us

LD

I've never competed in LD, but I've seen rounds. I don't have a preference of traditional or progressive. If I end up judging you, its up to you what you decide to do. While I haven’t done LD, i’m definitely not oblivious to how it works- so ultimately just do whatever you’re comfortable with & what you think is best.... This ones kinda vague, so if you have questions or need clarification just email

Congress

honestly, this doesn’t really need an explanation. speak well, i enjoy the use of pathos- but not excessively. i will rank you on your overall participation within the round. Make me notice you- ask questions, use parli pro, and give some dang good speeches. have fun, this is always a learning experience and if you have questions- just ask.

also- i’m a firm believer that anyone breaking should be a well rounded delegate- by this i mean that they’ve been active and prominent within the session - asking questions, using parli pro, giving speeches. Also while quality > quantity is definitely true, don’t think you can just give one speech and be done because more than likely, that’s not going to earn you points in my book.

Speaks

Everyone starts @ 28.5. I see this as “average” and your speaks will go up or down from there. Don’t expect a 30 from me unless you are truly an exceptionally great speaker (for your division) I will be more lax about speaks with novice debaters. Again, any harmful speaking during the round will result in embarrassingly low speaks.

I do give RFDs - you should write them down. I might disclose the round, but that depends on the round, my flows, and the tournament.

In the end, have fun. Make it fun for everyone there.

Any questions - email me jasminelturnage@gmail.com