Respect comes first. We’re here to compete, but there’s a fine line between being competitive and being aggressive. That said, I do consider myself a flow judge. At the end of the day, my vote is going to boil down to consistent and clear refutation across the flow. Clear signposting is also HIGHLY appreciated.

Speed is alright, so long as you’re able to annunciate. It doesn’t matter how many points you’re able to fit into a minute if I can’t tell what you’re saying.

Tl;dr: Refute, be respectful of your opponent, and annunciate.

As background on who your judge today is: I am a student at The College of Idaho. I am on the Howling Yotes debate team and often compete in British Parliamentary. Through all four years of high school I competed in various speech events and did every debate event on the Idaho high school circuit. I do not try to judge based on the knowledge I have from higher education, but instead on a variety of factors.

Technique: This is the most important thing in debate. I am not a techy debater and don't focus on the major agnostics of it, but at the end of the day the tools you utilize in debate are vital to winning. Part of what this means for me is that structure to your speeches is important. I want to see clear pieces to each argument and for you to spell things out for me; I will not make connections for you or do any of the work for you when judging. Clear link work and impacts are major judging factors for me. Building a case and refutation should involve clear and strong offense. Offense is more important to me than defense; defense is important and should be included but that should just illustrate how important strong offense is.

Persuasiveness: This is less of an important factor, but it still matters because debate is not purely about the agnostics of it all. This can mean clear and confident speaking. This can go a long way towards selling an argument, but honestly I would give low point wins if I could because the eloquence of a speech does not determine if you had a winning argument.

Question periods: This looks different depending on the type of debate, but I highly recommend all debaters utilize questioning periods to their full extent. I want to see that you are using question period to build either direct offense or defense. Filler questions or ending questioning period early makes it look like you have nothing to say about your opponents speech.

Evidence: I want to see reliable and credible sources. This is a huge point of backing up your claims. However, this does not stand on its own; there needs to be a warrant. The link work you use to explain the impacts of this evidence is just as important.

If you have any questions about feedback or other things I saw in the debate, you can email me at jayden.bodey@yotes.collegeofidaho.edu !

My background/history: I studied speech/communications and have spent the last two decades first as a broadcast journalist and now as an executive in charge of strategic communication and change management for a large government agency. I have been judging since 2019.

Persuasion and influence depend on the strength and clarity of an argument. That's what I look for in every round.

I make my decision based on thoughtful, well-organized arguments where impacts are clearly defined. Convince me your argument is best. Tell me why. Be creative, but keep your arguments relevant.

I have to be able to understand your words — including the text of evidence - in order to judge most fairly and appropriately.

Quality of arguments is always more important than quantity. I love clash! Be respectful and kind.

Your primary focus should be on presenting sound arguments and countering your opponents' arguments, not just looking for opportunities to attack an opponent's style or method flaws.

I am generous on speaker points for those who speak in a natural way and command attention through eye contact and body language.

Some of my other favorite things? Passion about your position, anticipating an opponent's arguments, smart and spirited cross-examination (pay attention to your opponent's answers and work them into your counter!)

Bring your best self to the round...and have fun! I promise to do the same.

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

I have been a coach in Idaho since 2013 with students competing in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas and Policy style debate. In general I prefer clear articulation, solid logic, and in depth analysis. I will add style specific details below.

Public Forum

I believe that public forum should remain the most accessible format of debate and should strive to avoid over reliance on Debate Theory or jargon. I prefer a few in depth and detailed arguments over a larger quantity of superficial arguments. Final Focus should include key voters on both sides.

Lincoln Douglas

I am on the progressive side of traditional for LD debate. I believe the value debate is the key to Lincoln Douglas debate and expect clash on the value level as well as the argument level. I like the inclusion of philosophical arguments and may vote only on philosophy if it is warranted. I enjoy definition and theory debate but you'll have to work very hard to get me to vote on a K.

Policy

I am a traditionalist in Policy debate. I vote almost exclusively on the stock issues, I believe that the Affirmative must sufficiently address each of the major stock issues and have never voted on a kritical Aff. I believe T is a voter, but that the default assumption is that the Aff is topical. I don't like topical CP's and you will have to work pretty hard to get me to vote on a K. I default to Condo Bad so the neg will need to justify any conditional positions. I am not a fan of high speed "spreading" or any rate of speed which inhibits clarity of arguments or speech. I want to be able to flow the warrants and links as well as taglines and impacts.

"Education . . . is a process of living, not a preparation for future living." -John Dewey

I was a high school debater for Capital high school all throughout my years as a student and now I am currently a debater at the College of Idaho. the more I become entrenched in what it means to go to a liberal arts school, the more I realize that the debate circuit everyone has come to know in high school is not realistic to actual living. Therefore, when I judge rounds, I am not thinking about how you have dressed or the formality that you present to me but I'm instead judging how well you fulfill what the event is supposed to represent. If I am judging Lincoln Douglas, I expect to see a debate on conflicting values, I don't expect to see a debate on minuscule facts. In public form, I expect to see a debate that would be comprehensible for anybody who walked into the room. Any other events that I end up judging I can disclose at my leisure. I was also an interp event speaker and had been working on my own pieces through my college years and will provide criticism on how you present your speech to me as well as the contents of that speech in great detail. I believe wholeheartedly that debate is something that should prepare you to become a better speaker and also become comfortable with failure. I know how it is to get caught up in a game of break or not but rather we should focus on how you can learn from this round. If you didn't win the round what things can you do better next time? I am always open to having discussions about things that you can do better next time.

This is your round to have and enjoy, so most importantly, make sure that you are being kind to your opponent and having fun!

I am comfortable with speed, but do not be excessive or spread, and I am comfortable with all forms of arguments. If you run a K, or a CounterPlan, or something progressive in LD - it needs to be done in a way that is accessible to your opponent.

If you need to transfer evidence, I won't count it as prep time, but please don't be excessive or abuse that time. (I.E. have your evidence pulled up and organized)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round! Have fun!

My email is hampton.allie@gmail.com if you have any further questions.

I have quite a bit of experience with forensics, so no need to worry about that! I competed in Policy and PF in high school for 3 years, and I am currently competing in collegiate forensics.

I am comfortable with just about any kind of argument as long as you can demonstrate you know what you're talking about. I am also comfortable with speed, but signposting needs to be clear otherwise I won't get your argument down on my flow, I do appreciate quality over quantity of arguments. Essentially, I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me.

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round. For Policy, I am a stock issues judge, so I do value harms, the plan, solvency, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans, and the like. I am also comfortable with Kritiks and will take them into consideration, but I do not prefer them.

Be nice :)

I like to judge based on the flow; if you want an argument to matter you have to tell my why. I don't vote on dropped points unless you tell me why the argument matters. I'm not gonna do any of the work for you here; if you don't tell me why I should care, I wont.

Rebuttals should not just be a cross-application simulator. I get that your points often do a good job by themselves of refuting your opponent, but I need you to EXPLAIN how this actually applies. If you just say the name of your contention and move on, you might as well have said nothing at all.

Impact calculus is probably my number 1 voter. If you can prove to me in the end that your impacts consistently flow your side then I will give you the win.

**Just some stuff about me: I did debate for four years in high school and I have experience in PF, LD, and Policy, though I specialized in policy and LD. I currently debate in college for the BSU talking broncos team so if you have any questions you can reach me through there.

If you use speech drop or you have an email chain (adamlevanger@gmail.com), adamlevanger@gmail.com.

My background: I have been involved in debate for a couple of years but am not an experienced or technical judge. I am a lay judge with a growing understanding of things...I almost know enough to be dangerous but sincerely try to stay in my lane. Clear sign-posting please. I will flow. I appreciate moderate speed but can deal with speed if I have access to the evidence.

Aff: I think Policy Aff's make the most sense and have a harder time with K-Aff's, although I have voted for K's. I prefer a strong, easy to follow link chain. Please explain arguments and impacts clearly. I have a preference for realistic impacts, but if your links makes sense, go for it. Sign-post strongly for me please.

Neg:

Topicality/theory: Make sure you have a clear interpretation and violation and link strongly to why it's un-topical.

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

Counterplans: Prefer if mutually exclusive and can solve for Aff and Neg impacts.

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

I am the speech and debate coach at Owyhee High School, and I have been a high school English teacher since 2011. Because of that, I value all arguments, both scripted and improvised, that are evidence-based. I like a good amount of clash in questioning and rebuttals, and I do not mind speed. I guess the closest archetype for my paradigm would be a flow judge, but I am not strictly going off the flow for my decision. Not all arguments are debated equally, so I will value the points that get the most attention in cross ex and rebuttals.

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

I really want to be an observer who listens and records the winner(s). I prefer it when students time and manage the round themselves, and you do not need to ask me if I am ever ready. Of course, I will always answer any questions you have, but my favorite rounds happen when the students run the whole show and I get to sit back and take notes.

I am a judge who has formerly competed in debate in high school and college, and I am a coach.

I will flow the round and make decisions based on the ability of a debater to tie arguments back to frameworks and properly defend their position using line by line argumentation. I attempt to be a tabula rassa judge, but no person is entirely a blank slate. So, if you can directly attack and refute the arguments of your opponent by using evidence that is convincing and do so in a rhetorically effective manner then you will do well. I will not connect arguments for you, so you have to be able to make clear linkages between impacts and your case's ability to solve them. Please sign post along the way so I know where you are at in the debate, and make the debate as comprehensive as you possibly can. Use overviews and voters in rebuttals to summarize and connect your speeches effectively. Use your time wisely and be courteous of your opponents and their time as well.

I will hear out most arguments as long as they are clear and sufficiently backed up with evidence.

Okay here's the gist...

Clarity and Organization: I want to see speakers presents their arguments with organized points, that have clear logical structure and utilize effective signposting.

Content and Argumentation: I want to see strong use of evidence; clearly stating the source, dates for relevance and, use those sources effectively to counter opposing arguments.

Delivery and Presentation: Everyone has different delivery style/s I get it. Factors I consider are confidence, voice modulation, gestures, eye contact, and overall being present I want to feel like your argument is something you are familiar with and invested in, and we are just having a conversation, you heard.

Clash and Engagement: I will determine how well the debaters are based on how engaged they are with each other's arguments. So are they actively engaging in the debate and directly addressing their opponents' points? if yes then this factor is what makes their case score higher. debate is about challenging ideas don't just stand their and have a speech on your case and don't make effort to poke holes in your oppositions argument. Because that's just no fun, lets have some clash folks!

Time Management: It is advised that for the speakers, effectively manage your allotted time for each speech and stay within the prescribed time limits. Its totally okay to go a little over and maybe 5 seconds or so, more than that however is a no. But do take the time to finish your thoughts and don't panic.

Respect and Decorum: While being a good debater is knowing what your doing and having a good case, its also crucial that as you debate maintain respect for your opponents and the audience. Check for any use of offensive language or behavior, there is certain behavior during in round that should not be tolerated and if that line is crossed as a judge that's just something I will take note of and will weigh in on your performance because debate should not be toxic and ensure participants have fun and learn in a healthy environment.

Cheers and good luck!

Clarity and Communication: I want clear and logical structure with on time roadmapping and signposting throughout. Try not to speak so fast that I can't understand you. I do understand that you have a lot to say on your topic but try to keep a clear and consistent pace.

Clash: The more clash the better, in all styles of debate

Respect is extremely important in debate, it won't affect your placement but it will affect your speaker points

If you do not provide voting issues I can not and will not vote for you unless you provide a succinct and strong case that can beat your opponent on its merit alone

I do not keep a rigorous flow, I will write down key words and points that I pick up on and I will keep track of the interaction from both you and your opponent regarding those points

I competed in PF throughout high school and assistant coached after I graduated. I've judged all forms of debate extensively and I love progressive debate. Be clear, signpost, and I should be able to keep up.

I judge off the flow. If you drop arguments, you will lose them. Everything should be carried throughout the round, unless you give me reason it shouldn't be. I also judge heavily on framework (especially in LD and CX) because this tells me how I should measure the round. I'm comfortable with virtually any kind of argument, as long as you can prove to me why it matters.

I don't mind speed. Spreading is fine with me if you go slow on tags and flash your case to your opponent.

I don't care much about propriety (tag-teaming, standing vs seated, etc.) but I do care that you're respectful. This is an educational space. I don't care about assertiveness (totally understand rounds can get heated) but if you need to be mean or condescending to win, you're not a good debater.

See you in round! Good luck! :)

Good (Morning, Afternoon, Evening). I debated 4 years in High School and I am currently a member of the Boise State University Speech & Debate team. I am primarily familiar with Public Forum, however I have competed in Congress and am familiar with LD.

I do not really have much to say, debate should be about the competitors not the judges. You can basically run whatever you want with me, just make sure you have good links. I won't tolerate any homophobia, sexism, transphobia, racism, or personal attacks. Just have a good time. Feel free to email me with questions about the round @ adampendergrass@u.boisestate.edu

Have Fun!

I participated in speech and debate in high school and in college. I am very familiar with all forms of debate and have judged it for a few years now. During the round, I will be flowing your arguments. I am looking for the ability for you to provide solid arguments, strengthen them throughout the round, and to be able to refute and debate your opponent’s arguments. I am good with speed, just if I can still understand you well. You can also run time yourself during the round, but I will be doing so as well. Let me know if you have any questions!

I'm a Second-Year judge so have obtained some good experience last year. For Debate, I'd like participants to be deliberate in making their points and have supporting evidence to their arguments. I've given many presentations in my career and pace and eye contact are very important to me. Don't just sit and read from a script or your PC. You need to engage with me as a judge and be sure I'm capturing the points you really want to get across. Be respectful of your opponents but be thorough in your Cross. Lastly be sure to use your time wisely. Have fun and enjoy the competition.

For speech events, be sure you're fully addressing the content you need to cover in the speech. You should maintain eye contact with the judge and if properly used blocking can be a very effective tool in speech. Don't rush through your speech and try to use up all the time you've been given. Relax and have fun.

I began my experience with Speech and Debate in 2022. I have a background in Classics (Greek and Latin Language, Culture, Literature and History), and care deeply about effective pedagogy.

Essentially, I am a hybrid communications/flow judge, meaning that effective communication, clear signposting/structure, and also being respectful of each other and both the rules AND SPIRIT of debate is very important to me. I will judge from my flows for both LD and PF, so I will ask for pre-flow of your number of contentions and sub-points; please make sure I can flow your case. Please note: LD is not Policy, PF is not Policy, and I am not a Policy judge. For my approach to speech events, please follow this link.

Speaker Points: I am developing a Speaker Points Rubric that will assess the following categories:

~Constructive Argumentation
~Refutation & Rebuttal
~Evidence & Logic
~Cross-Examination
~Delivery

Cross-X and Clash: I value civil and direct cross, as well as effective engagement with opposing arguments and framework. Direct clash with claims and evidence is possible while still treating one another well. I will notice evasive responses.

Spread: I can tolerate a fairly quick rate of speech, but if I miss key terms or points, my understanding of your argument will suffer. I also find that people who prioritize speed and quantity of information over clarity lose my attention, since it's impossible to use effective vocal dynamics if your pace is too quick.

Resolution Analyses and Kritiks: Unless you are a going to do something amazing with them, or there’s something in the Resolution that truly merits one, I think they're a waste of time and unnecessarily obfuscate argumentation. I repeat: LD is not Policy. PF is not Policy. I am not a Policy judge. Until I see a K or RA that changes my mind, I am of the opinion that K's are most often a cowardly way of avoiding engagement with the opposing side. Counterplans are fine!

Pet Peeves: I resent being gaslighted. I keep careful flows, so don't tell me they dropped your case/points, unless that's clear from the flow.

Hey y'all,

I'm a coach and competed for 8 years. I vote on persuasion through links, impacts, and comms. The more work you do the less work I have to do, meaning the less chance I have to reach my own conclusion. Help me help you.

Debate experience:
4 years nat circ / varsity policy at Derby High School in Derby, KS ????Formerly known as Jack Sallman

A little LD, world schools at nationals twice, basic understanding of PFD

MY PRONOUNS ARE HE/HIM

Put me on the email chain. Send docs before the speech, not after. Jacksallmandebate@gmail.com

Always feel free to email me with questions or feedback !

open cx is fine, off time flashing and road maps are fine idc

A few things:

Debate however you feel comfortable. I enjoy many different styles of argumentation and debate. If you're critical or policy, TOC or KDC, or literally any style of debating, my job as the judge is to adapt to your style.

Email chains/flashing: If I (or the other team) ask you to flash/share your speech doc and you refuse, speaker points will face consequences.

Post-rounding: I don't mind providing feedback or answering questions. Any post rounding that gets out of hand/aggressive, I will shut down though. It's a genuine trigger for me, and I also feel like blowing up on your judge is not productive.

Speed: Go as fast as you want, but please be clear. With me, I don't care if you're slow or fast, because I think efficiency is more important than speed.

I start speaks at 28 and work my way up or down.

Manners? : I think being assertive is good. If you're a jerk though, I'll drop your speaks. Don't be a bigot.

T

Competing interps is probably better than reasonability, but you've got to do your work. Please do your impacts and standards work or I'll die on the inside. Crafty we meets are awesome. Tell me why I prefer your interp. Shot gun T isn't one of my favorites, but I'll still listen to it.

DA

I love DA debates, as long as the DA isn't entirely horrible or you can do the work for it (Flashback to no DA ground on CJR topic). I default more to magnitude and probability debates. Brink arguments can be important. Aff, turn the DA. Neg, explain WHY the DA outweighs and turns the case. Specific links are great. I don't default automatically to util or deontology, I will evaluate with the lenses that wins on the framing debate. I LOVE DAs for K affs or on FW.

CP

POST the cp, but I wouldn't spend too much time on theory unless if you're going for condo. I tend to lean towards reject arg not team unless if the aff proves I should reject the team. The CP needs a net benefit. Aff, explain the perm. DON'T FORGET TO PUT OFFENSE ON THE CP!!!! Neg, I won't judge kick the cp unless explicitly told to and I feel it is right. Also if you can prove the CP links to the net bens, mwah!!! Do it! Ngl tho, cp debate isn't my favorite but don't let that discourage you! I will still vote on CPs.

K

Hell yeah. I've run Queer Theory, Capitalism, Derrida, Militarism, Security, Abolition, Anthro, Disability, Biopower, Set Col, etc. Basically, I love K debate. Performance K's, Rep K's, Academic approach K's, etc. are all fine with me. I am not strongly familiar with Baudrillard or Deleuze, however. If you want to attempt that route, feel free, but buckle down to explain more than a judge who is a Baudrillard hack. TBH most K's I can grasp fairly quickly. If you have any questions about this or if I know anything about a specific area of literature, either shoot me an email or ask me before the round.

K aff/FW

FW - I think clash is the important part here. Prob should read state inev, convince me why your interp o/w. TBH I don't think Affs need a w/m here, just a counter interp. I think if you find crafty ways to turn the DAs the aff will inevitably put on FW, DO IT. On a side note, Affs, put good DAs on FW. Side note.... FW doesn't only have to be T-USFG...

K affs -hell yeah. I read a queer anarchism academia aff my senior year, if that says anything, and my teammates read a Foucault Will of the Sovereign k aff. If you can effectively explain your case and win FW, you're good. I don't care if your aff does or doesn't have an advocacy, but be prepared to have that debate. Also read "K" header for more info literature wise. I think that preempting FW and other args in the 1AC is smart, and while I don't require it with my approach, topic specific affs are good. If you're not topic specific, that's still aight. I'll listen to most things -- but be ready for that debate with the neg.

Theory

I think most theory except condo is good enough for rejecting the arg not the team. This doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't attempt theory debate -- go for it if that's your heart's desire. Please don't be blippy on these theory debates and sending those blocks could be good. Even the best flow out there won't catch all of your arguments if you spread full speed through theory blocks.

It's a Great Day to be a Panther