Hi, I’m a parent judge. I appreciate clarity of speech. Please ensure you support your evidence with right data and elaborate on it. Be engaging in your conversations.

I am new to debate and this is my first time judging. Please go slow and explain every thing in detail. Thank you! Good Luck!

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

Aloha from Hawai'i and the island of Oahu! I bring this to your attention because for virtual tournaments, I am 4 hours behind mainland Central time, so noon there is 8 a.m. for me. If you draw me in a morning round and I look like I just rolled out of bed, please know that it is probably because...well...I likely DID just roll out of bed and may or may not have finished my first (or third) can of Mtn. Dew yet! That said, let me get on to the real reason you came here and introduce you to my judging paradigm...

As an adjudicator in debate (going on 30 years on and off in the activity), I try to leave preconceived notions at the door so that both sides in the debate space are free to utilize the full range of style and strategy that they want during a round. Judge adaptation is a two-way street and judges need to accept that competitors in their presence bring differing styles and that we should give fair treatment to the same, even if their practices do not align with those that we personally favor/teach/have practiced.

My "style" of judging would best be described as tabula rasa with some tones of game player mixed in. We are here for competition, so regardless of "role of the ballot" arguments, my ultimate duty as a judge is to progress the better competitor in the round. I like to think of myself as a fairly "hands off" person when it comes to interjecting myself into a debate round, but you can make this more of a certainty by being absolutely sure you stress why YOU think you've won -- give voters, weigh out arguments, state the significance of points you think you win. At its heart, debate is a head-to-head story telling competition. For best results, your job is to tell me why your story is more believable than the one I'm hearing from your opponent. I am a judge, not a mind-reader, so do not leave your tournament future in the hands of fate by making me guess what you're trying to say! (remember, I probably woke up REALLY early today...)

For specific elements of debate that I commonly get asked about (much of what follows is specific to LD and Policy, PF is pretty clear within its event description with regard to what the event does/nʻt accept):

SPEED -- I would say on a scale of 1 (slow) to 10 (lightning fast), I probably log in at about a 7 (but be aware that this is for in-person...if you feel the need to go fast in an online tournament, you are putting yourself at the risk of technological glitches. This is still a communication activity, so arguments at least need to be intelligible to have merit and weight within a round. If there is an email chain being created, please add me to it -- rahorobi@ksbe.edu

THEORY -- I will vote on theory if you convince me that the argument has merit (usually this means convincing me that there has been a genuine abuse/loss of ground/skew of fairness as opposed to "my opponent dropped 3 of my 9 blipped one-liners from my last speech"). I am not a fan of theory as a time-suck argument, so if you run something please be serious about its application and utilization. I will only vote on disclosure theory if something in the tournament literature indicates that disclosure is expected.

K's -- I'll entertain them and will vote for them the same as any other argument in a round. Please be clear about the Alt.

SPEAKING POINTS -- Absent documentation from the tournament, here is my personal scoring range on a traditional 30-point scale: 30 = in my opinion, likely one of the top debaters in the tournament; 29 = Someone I expect to advance deeply into elimination rounds based off this performance; 28 = Clearly above average, good chance of making elim rounds; 27 = An average debater for this level, someone I would expect to finish near .500 based on what I see; 26 = Needs improvement as clear technical/speaking gaps were evident based on performance. ***I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DELIVER LOWER POINT SCORES SHOULD YOU BE RUDE OR OFFENSIVE***

In closing, if there's anything here that you are still curious about, feel free to ask about it pre-round. You are here to compete and have fun. I am here to make sure the tournament runs smoothly and to do my part toward seeing the best competitors advance as deep into the tournament as they deserve. Live aloha, give aloha!

I am relatively new to judging both speech events and debate events.

For speech events: I look for enounciation, facial expressions, content, and hand motions. The most effective speeches deliver a message using evidence and logic. I have expirience judging specifically extemp, and impromptu.

I am a parent, please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon.

I am a parent. Please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargons, if possible.

Background: I primarily did PF in high school (as well as other speech events + Congress). Currently I'm a speech + debate coach. 3x National qualifier.

In all forms of debate, I prioritize clash and impact weighing. Tell me where to vote on the flow. Tell me how you've won your debate.

Parli: I love a good k. I dislike friv theory as it wastes time and contradicts the purpose of debate (education).

PF: Cards without valid reasoning to demonstrate how they support your argument do not prove your point. Please signpost, warrant, and weigh.

LD: I prefer a traditional approach to LD. Set up a framework that explains how your value weighs more or solves for your opponent's case. Use the framework as you weigh voters. Prioritize quality over quantity when it comes to words/speed. LD shouldn't be treated like circuit policy.

Policy: I do my best to keep up with speed, although I'm less familiar flowing policy than other debate formats. I'll consider kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages.

Speech: I vote based on emotional authenticity, delivery, content (topic, speech cutting), organization, and blocking. I care about unique topics in platform events and believable acting + compelling character arcs in interp.

Decorum: To me, debate should be inclusive and welcoming to students of all identities and experience levels. If you make it hostile for someone, I cannot ethically vote for you, no matter the flow. Laughing at your opponents; excessively whispering during others' speeches; or making implicitly sexist, racist, or ableist arguments will affect your speaks and my ability to buy your argument. I will deduct speaker points if I encounter students from the same program running the same arguments word-for-word. Share ideas in prepared debate events, but write your own cases.

I am a parent judge

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

As a new judge, here are the criteria I'll be using to guide my evaluation process, ensuring fairness and consistency in my assessments:

1. Clarity of Arguments: I will look for clear and logical arguments.

2. Organization: I expect speeches or debates to have a structured format with an introduction, main points, and conclusion.

3. Evidence and Examples: I will assess the strength and relevance of the evidence and examples presented to support arguments.

4. Rebuttal and Refutation: I'll be observing how effectively speakers respond to opposing arguments with counterarguments.

5. Engagement with the Audience: I'll pay attention to how well speakers engage the audience through eye contact, body language, and delivery.

6. Adaptability: I'll evaluate speakers' ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or changes in the debate.

7. Use of Time: I'll expect speakers to manage their time effectively and stay within their allotted time limits.

8. Confidence and Presence: I'll consider the confidence and presence demonstrated by speakers on stage.

9. Originality and Creativity: I'll appreciate original and creative approaches to arguments or speeches.

Hello,

I have been participating in Speech and Debate for 15+ years. I believe speeches are "meant to be heard" and judge in the same fashion. If you speech is fast, unclear, and/or inconsistent, I will take note. Lively body posture and eye contact are a must. Ultimately, have fun, perform the way you practice, and nothing will stop you!

Athenian ’24, 2 bids, finaled a decent size tournament. I’m a Philosophy major if that matters for how you’re debating.

During Senior year, I was coached by Holden Bukowsky and I prepped with Ryan Noorizadeh.

everettyau36@gmail.com for email chain and questions.

In-Round.

1. No marked docs. Tell the other debater which words you cut cards. It’s faster and there’s less prep-stealing.
2. Clipping is an L25. You need a recording to stake the round.
3. No callouts or any arguments based on something out of round.
4. Run anything you want. My brightline for intervening in the round is slurs or anything worse.
5. I default to Truth Testing as a ROTB and I default to evaluating inserted rehighlights.
6. If your cards have your tag on it/I know that you cut them, you will get a speaker point boost.
7. I’m not going to flow from the doc, so be clear before being speedy.
8. Read evidence ethics like a theory shell.

General Debate Thoughts.

1. The value of tech is articulating truthful arguments accurately.
2. The value of strategy is in finding truthful arguments that are also technically viable.
3. I have a very high threshold for tricks and theory.
4. Every non-policy position’s purpose is to beat extinction outweighs. This is especially important for goofy philosophy arguments that confuse everyone but ultimately agree with extinction, but also keep it in mind for Ks.
5. DTA with Condo is coherent. Forcing them to not go for any conditional position is a sufficient punishment.
6. When attempting to determine a philosophy to run, keep in mind that the resolution is usually asking about what the government should do, meaning political philosophy is often more important than moral philosophy.
7. I pretty much only care about debate for its ability to be educational about philosophy.

Kritiks:

1. I love when debaters know their literature. I’ve spent a lot of my time in debate trying to make my arguments more genuine to the literature, and I think that this is one of the most valuable skills in K debate.
2. Links are usually where these debates are won or lost.
3. I’m most convinced by a middle ground framework interpretation.
4. Extinction o/w should beat every K that does not have a response to it other than “extinction reps bad.” This has never been convincing for me.
5. There’s no such thing as a K that doesn’t require you to win framework. This includes PIKs. However, if your opponent doesn’t point this out, it’s fair game.
6. Perms under a framework that includes the aff’s episteme are almost always severance.

Policy:

1. I’m good with any cheaty counterplans. I’ll vote against them if a theory argument is won, but I’ll still like the counterplan.
2. Zero risk exists. It’s pretty rare though.
3. Judge kick needs a warrant.

Framework:

1. I think fairness is an internal link and not an impact. You can probably convince me otherwise in round, though.
2. SSD and the TVA are very good. Affs that haven’t thought out how they beat SSD should almost always lose to it.
3. Impact turns as a reason to DTD needs to be impacted out in a speech, not just labeled that way in flex.
4. I meet strategies with stupid definitions are usually not convincing to me.

K Affs:

1. I hate IVI spam so much. Please don’t do this.
2. THINK THROUGH HOW TO BEAT FRAMEWORK. If you don’t know how you’ll beat every common argument, you will lose.
3. I love topical K affs. I’m pretty convinced that you should be able to weigh your episteme, but bonus points if the K impact is reverse causal.

T:

1. It’s probably strategic to have T specific paradigm issues.
2. Caselists are great.

Theory:

1. Most theory can be resolved by reasonability. It’s extra convincing when you contextualize reasonability to the specific shell.

Phil:

1. As you can probably tell, this is what I actually care about within debate. If you have a good philosophy debate, I’ll be super happy and probably give you better speaks. Prove to me you’ve read about the topic and know what you’re saying.
2. The way that philosophy should be run in debate is very similar to how Kritiks are already run. By that, I mean that you should be leveraging central syllogisms of your philosophy to answer objections. Please do not do the thing where you have 20 bullet points and then crossapply the one dropped one to answer objections in the most contrived way possible.
3. If you run Aquinas (and don’t bastardize it) I’ll give you a 30.
4. Kant outweighs extinction under epistemic modesty. Kant should beat consult and delay counterplans every time. Email me if you want an explanation.
5. Go for determinism!

I am a parent judge, so please refrain from spreading too much. Thank you!