"The key to success is confidence, and the key to confidence is preparation." Most of life is about preparation.

I value reason, and the best way to think rationally is to be prepared with exposure to diverse perspectives on a given topic.

I will be looking for preparedness and the fruits of preparedness: confidence and coherent arguments.

Additionally, tactfulness and grace under pressure are also qualities I look for.

Spreading raises chances of being misunderstood.

I am new judge. Present the argument clearly, avoid debate jargons and speak at conversational speed.

Tech Judge: I have no problem with spreading, jargon, criterion, voting issues, and progressive arguments. I feel that I should not have to "do the work" as a judge in a round meaning that you should have complete and thorough arguments that should be clear and concise. I prefer to see a logical flow throughout all arguments, especially in rebuttals.

EMAIL: pattridg@asu.edu

Debate paradigm will be contextual to each form of debate. For positionality, I am a college speech coach (though I competed in high school debate and have judged debate at all levels of competition - it's just not my main thing), and I am a trans woman. If either of these things will bother you, strike me.

GENERAL: you may ask for any accommodations you like. Debate has historically upheld white supremacy, and making sure that rounds do not do that now requires active effort. Do not misgender me please, as me crying will probably not improve the round (unless it's a really good cry). The first time it happens, I won't drop you, but I will remind you. If you continue to misgender me, it will impact your ballot.

LD/Parli: spread is fine, love Ks, cool with Theory but actually tell me if you want me to vote on it. See below for "clear". I highly recommend explicitly stating how arguments link back to framework.

Policy: do whatever you want, but I reserve the right to say "clear" if I'm having trouble following, and will extend that right to both teams as well.

IPDA: fine with everything, but make sure your opponent is too. This is the kind of question to ask before prep starts, not after.

PF: don't flow through ink. Don't strawman your opponent's evidence or flow coverage (saying "they didn't address Contention 2 subpoint A" when they in fact did. You can tell me why they didn't address it in ways that mattered, and go in depth here, but don't conflate that with "they didn't address it"). The first time it happens, I will give you some leeway. The second time it happens, it will impact your speaker points. The third time it happens, you will be dropped. Clarity and clear links are valued.

I am an instructional coach at Gilbert High school.

Hello! This is my first-year judging debate events. Please adapt to me as a newer judge, at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say and take notes. Please speak slowly and explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains - things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me. If you see me lift up my pen or not write anything for a while, it means you are going too fast for me. Slow down and speak at an understandable pace. I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone - don't yell - and be as persuasive as you can.

I consider myself alayjudge, but I will attempt to flow during the round. Here are a few of my preferences to keep in mind:

• Please be clear and concise. You should be explaining your arguments (and context) in-depth. Give me a clear link that I can follow. As always, I need to hear good warranting in case AND hear it be extended.

• Please no spreading.If I don’t understand an argument, I’m not voting for it.

• Organization matters, please signpost.

• Do comparative weighing. Give me something tangible to vote for. Tell me what is most important, and why I should be valuing this over everything else.

• Finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful. Be a good, kind person. You can be skilled and assertive without being rude.

• Add me to the email chain, dmdawson413@gmail.com

Best of luck everyone!

Debate Judge Paradigm

I strive to be impartial and evaluate arguments solely based on their merit, regardless of personal biases or preferences. I expect debaters to adhere to the rules and guidelines of the format and engage in respectful discourse.

Clear communication is essential for effective debate. Debaters should articulate their arguments coherently, using logical reasoning and evidence to support their claims. I value organization and expect debaters to structure their speeches in a way that facilitates understanding and flow. Please avoid spreading.

Debaters should present well-reasoned arguments supported by credible evidence. I appreciate depth of analysis and critical thinking, rather than mere assertion. I evaluate the strength of arguments based on their relevance, logic, and persuasiveness.

Active engagement with opponents' arguments is crucial. Debaters should address opposing points effectively, providing rebuttals that directly respond to the substance of their opponents' arguments. I value debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the round and effectively refute opposing claims.

The quality of evidence is paramount. Debaters should use credible sources to support their claims and provide proper citations. I expect debaters to critically evaluate the reliability and relevance of their evidence, and I may discount arguments that rely on dubious or misrepresented sources.

In reaching my decision, I consider the overall quality of arguments presented by each debater, as well as their adherence to the principles outlined above. I strive to provide constructive feedback that helps debaters improve their skills and understanding of the topic.

As a parent judge, clarity in your arguments is crucial for my understanding. Avoid spreading and ensure each claim is accompanied by a sensible warrant. Additionally, maintaining a respectful tone is essential throughout the debate.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

About me:

I am a parent judge. This is my second time judging the debate. Earlier, I have judged four rounds of debate.

I would highly appreciate if you speak slow (conversational style) and clear. Please be respectful and earn respect.

I will take down notes throughout the round, with my focus on the key argument.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.

I award points based on the following:

1. How you speak and how you conduct yourself in cross, if you are rude, offensive etc. you will be marked down.
2. Your final/closing rebuttal.

Academically, I specialize in rhetoric. In debate events, I prioritize clear, reasoned arguments, warrants that show logical connections between the evidence and claim, and skillful, rational discourse between debaters. I feel that the debate has an essential purpose in society and that civil discourse is the cornerstone of a productive society.

While presentation, charisma, and composure can affect how an audience responds to your argument, the most important part is your reasoning. A well-reasoned response delivered skillfully will land every time. A poorly delivered response that is logically sound will land more often with me than a skillfully presented argument that is not logically sound.

In platform events, I appreciate it when ideas presented connect meaningfully to authentic human experience, exhibit engaging storytelling, and present polished delivery (prioritized in that order). As a lifelong reader, I love character-driven narratives and want to feel included and drawn in. Human connection comes first.

Lay judge - I prefer if you speak slowly and clearly, send speech doc if you do not

Be polite in round

I prefer if you stick to traditional debate; explain any progressives and debate jargon in round

Tell me clearly why I should vote for you

Email for an email chain is singla.shradha@gmail.com

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 :).

◾ I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly or you don’t get my vote.

◾ Don’t run any progressive arguments.

◾ Be polite and respectful. No hate of any kind will be tolerated.

◾ Falsified evidence of any kind will result in an immediate loss of my ballot.

• I'm not a fan of spreading. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I want to make sure I comprehend all aspects of your arguments.
• It's important to be respectful to each other.
• Signpost (tell me what argument you're responding to or what overall contention you're talking about) so that I can put your responses where they should go.
• Your points will come across more effectively if they're supported by ample evidence and reasoning.
• Be sure to relax, have fun and enjoy yourself - This is a learning process and you will learn a lot through this experience.

Hello. I am a first time parent judge with no debate experience.

Please dont go fast, especially no spreading. Also please be respectful to the other side. I do not count cards to prep time but if you are being obnoxious and buying time, it wont look good for you.

Other than that relax and have fun. :)

I am a parent judge. So please speak clearly and never go above 200 words/min.

I am a parent judge or lay judge

Pretend I don't know anything about the topic and explain it to me like that

Please don't spread or falsify evidence doing so will result in an immediate loss of my ballot

Please do not run progressive arguments, I am unlikely to understand them

Please do not run any race or gender identity based arguments, I am not familiar with them and do not know how to vote on them

Please speak slowly and clearly

1. I am a parent judge. I don't have much experience judging LD, so please bear with me.
2. Please speak clearly and slowly (e.g., no more than 150 words per minute). Don't spread.
3. For the sake of organization, please make clear transitions from one phase to the next and signpost in your speeches.
4. Be respectful and don't intimidate your opponent.
5. I will not be timing the debate, so it is up to you to alert me of any time violations.
6. I am a slay judge, not a lay judge. ;) Remember to have fun!

I am a parent judge

Please talk slowly and no speaking fast as It will be hard for me to understand
Only do traditional debate

Please time yourself

I will pay attention to all arguments

I will try to judge fairly and not based off of speaking

- Explain thoroughly. You know your arguments very well, but they will be new to me so please explain them clearly. Your claims should be logically sound. If you are throwing out a crazy claim or card that seems contrary to logic, you're going to have to explain it very well.

- Try not to spread.

I am a parent judge. I very much prefer the traditional debate format and appreciate clear and concise arguments. I also find roadmaps and guidelines very helpful.

Spreading: I do not appreciate spreading. I do, however, understand that spreading is sometimes necessary, like, e.g., when rebutting a long list of contentions. I will read the speech document to assist my understanding of the argument but feel strongly that it is contingent on the debater to make a clear and compelling argument during the debate.

Cards/references: I most appreciate debaters citing peer-reviewed publications, less so for media publications. I'm grateful of the debaters who clearly state the legitimacy of their references or the unreliability of their opponent's references.

I have been involved in Speech and Debate as school staff since 2018, but I was a speaker and a debater in both high school and college (mostly IE, with some Policy and LD). This has been my first year as a coach.

In general, I am a judge who favors clarity and precision of language/rhetoric over speed and emotion.

1. Please make sure I can understand what you are saying. I tend to have a difficult time voting in favor of debaters who try to fit a 9-minute speech into a 6-minute window. If I can’t understand the words you are saying, it’s going to be tough for me to hand you a win.
2. Try to avoid going from zero-to-sixty, emotionally, from the jump in your first speech. If you start out your constructive screaming, wailing, and gnashing your teeth about injustice, you have nowhere to go, and I GET BORED. Forceful rhetoric and passion have a definite place here, but don’t shout at me in a monotone. You being on the edge of tears does not an effective argument make.
3. Stay civil. I know that’s part of the overarching rules, but it bears mentioning here. I don’t think snide, passive-aggressive, or patronizing comments are cute, and I won’t reward you for them.
4. I tend to favor debaters who do a mindful, detailed job of addressing opponent’s counter-arguments.
5. You are welcome to keep your own time, but I will also be timing.
6. I tend to favor strong evidence and flow-through over theory and philosophical bombast.
7. Do not count on me to connect the dots in your arguments. Fully articulate your points. Don’t be all claims and no evidence or all evidence and no warrants.

Finally, I will not vote for a debater who presents a racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, or otherwise discriminatory argument. I feel like this, along with civility, are in the rulebook, but I’m putting this out there anyway because I don’t love some of the linguistic backsliding I have started to see recently.

Please be clear. Spreading is okay, but I will not strain to understand what was said. I’d appreciate clear arguments.

Communication is key. I am looking for arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to judge. I will raise my hand if you are speaking too fast.

Be respectful. Disrespect will ensure your loss.

Preparedness and “grasp” of the topic matters.

Looking for a good flow of logic in arguments, and how the arguments are nicely connected with one another. Don’t make assumptions with out substantiative info backing that assumption

Healthy clash will bring the superior point to front line.

Logical evidence to support arguments are great, but what would be even greater is a strong argument that counters the evidence goes even farther.

Strong logic to support your case would be key to your success, however I strongly encourage you to quantify and weigh your impacts.

Make sure you are telling me exactly why I should vote for you, if you do not make a clear case for how I should evaluate the round, I will most likely not give you the ballot.

Lastly, I would appreciate for you to send your case at this email: raju04@gmail.com

No spreading. I am a parent judge and prefer Traditional debates. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't consider those arguments. Don't add me to email chains.

I won't time you, please time each other. You can complete your sentence once time runs out, anything new will be dropped. I will deduct 0.5 speaker points for bad time management.

I prefer evidence based facts from credible sources over individual author opinions or emotional appeals. While I do consider logic in decisioning, those arguments needs to be well supported.

While I consider cross ex in my judging, make sure you address anything significant in your subsequent case or rebuttal. Otherwise I will drop those from Judging consideration.

Speaker points: I score in increments of 0.5.

General rule of thumb: One of the best debaters: 30 points; Above average: 29 points; Average debater: 28 points; Below average: 27 points

Excessive Spreading: 25 points; Offensive or outrageous: 20 points.

1. Don't spread. You can speak slightly faster than average conversation speed. I cannot judge you if I cannot understand you.
2. I will be the official timekeeper. However, I strongly encourage each competitor to keep their own time. I may ask you for your remaining prep time. I will give 10 sec. grace period for any discrepancy in prep. time.
3. I am considered lay judge and does not have LD background. I have judged approximately 35 LD round during 2022-23 school year.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Please speak at a conversational rate as spreading makes it difficult to understand your arguments.

Well-reasoned arguments.

I am an engineer by training and a business manager by profession. I'm a parent judge. Please don't spread, speak clearly, and extend your warrants cleanly.

Hello to all Speech and Debate participants!

I am not worried about jargon or technical wording. I do ask that you consider defining the words as I am a proxy for society. Consider that if your audience/judges were 10 random people pulled from the street, what are the chance they would have an understanding of any jargon/technical wording you may be using. Please be mindful there.

To summarize, NO SPREADING. If you are spreading, I will need your case in order to follow along.

I will be listening and taking notes as best as I can. I do take notes on your contentions and evidence.

Please be weary of a higher speed of talking. While this is a competition and I know you have a lot to say, this should be preparing you as a public speaker. With that being said, I am an argument and style are equal type of person. The best debates I have judged always have a specific flair to them while maintaining high levels of argumentation.

As for running a K... I tend to lean on voting against Aff Ks unless they connect to the topic at hand. Yes, I understand there needs to be changes but simply telling us will not cause those changes. In the show business, you have to show us, not tell us. Set the example you want, relate it to your K ideals and then spend a small bit of time explaining the K. Show us, not tell us.

Please stay calm during your and do your best to not beat yourself up if you mess up. It happens to everyone.

Otherwise, do your best, have fun and listen for what you can learn from your opponents.

This is my first year as a judge. I am a parent of a first year LD competitor. I think it is important that a debater states a clear value. Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

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.

Parent lay judge.

Don't spread. Speak clearly. If I cant understand your argument I cant vote on it/weight it.

I need clear reasons (warrants) to vote on. Make sure that your arguments are logical and easy to follow. A dropped argument isn't going to be a reason for my decision if the the argument is not warranted properly.

Links must be reasonable/logical. From the rounds I've judged, I've found extinction impacts extremely hard to vote on.

Make sure your rebuttals are organized and logical. Off-time roadmaps help fulfil this. Make sure to signpost.

Lastly, be nice. Don't be snarky or roll your eyes at your opponent while they are speaking. Also, debate is meant to be fun and educational and if I find you are abusive in any way I will dock speaker points or possibly drop you.

1. Do NOT spread. You can speak slightly faster than average conversation speed. I cannot judge you if I cannot understand you. Very much appreciate maintaining the pace to help me follow the conversation.
2. I am perfectly fine with each competitor tracking their time but happy to be the official time keeper.
3. I appreciate facts and data and how they are relevant to the case (Example: Contentions).
4. I prefer to go through my detailed notes before I submit my verdict. This may take 5-10 minutes hence I do not disclose or announce my results to the competitors.
5. I update my feedback in Tabroom mostly after the rounds are completed so that I have the time to organize my notes & feedback and accordingly update in Tabroom.

Hello,

My name is Niti Singhania. I am a lay judge. A couple of things to keep in mind:

- I would appreciate really clear arguments so I can understand what you are saying and in the end can vote for the winner.

- Please speak loud and clear. If you speak too fast, I will stop flowing, raise my hand and let you know.

- No Spreading.

- Be civil and respectful towards your opponents. Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross.

Hello,

My name is Vinay Singhania. I am a lay judge. A couple of things to keep in mind:

- I would appreciate really clear arguments so I can understand what you are saying and in the end can vote for the winner.

- No Spreading.

- Be civil and respectful towards your opponents. Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross.

Hi, My name is Senthil. I am a parent judge.

Do Not Spread - I don't enjoy it, and if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you.

I like to see:

- Clear arguments with framework

- Good research and specific sources

- Conversational pace

- Fair and respectful debate

- Weigh the round using weighing mechanisms and make it explicitly clear why I should vote you by the last speech

I don't like to see:

- Ks without clear slow and logical explanation of literature and how to vote. To be safe, just don't run them with me.

- Theory/Tricks as I am more used to traditional argumentation and I may not be able to evaluate it.

- Spreading

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will be looking forward to an interesting round.

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 debaters,

As a judge, I approach each round with a commitment to fairness, clarity, and a thorough evaluation of the arguments presented. As your judge, I value:

1. Clarity:

• Speak clearly at a conversational pace and

• organize your arguments logically.

2. Arguments:

• I value well-reasoned and impactful arguments.

• Be sure to support your contentions with evidence and logical analysis.

3. Cross Ex & Rebuttals:

• Effective cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your case. Use it wisely.

• Analyze and respond thoughtfully to your opponents' thoughts.

4. Framework:

• Establish a clear framework for evaluating the round

• Prioritize and weigh arguments under the framework.

• Explain why your impacts matter more than your opponent's.

Remember that the goal is to engage in a constructive and educational debate. Good luck, and let's have a great debate!

Hello everyone!

I am a parent judge, so please do not run very tech-y arguments like Ks, Theory/T, and I am not good with philosophically-based framing like Kant, Hobbes, or other frameworks based on a specific author. If you cannot explain the syllogism or what your step-by-step philosophy is in front of a 5 year old, probably don't run it in front of me. Additionally, try not to run obscure values and value criterions.

Overall, I prefer to see debates with a utilitarian, or a good and bad framework. I love to see debates about the contention more than the value criterion or value debates as contention-level debating usually have more clash.

Additionally, regarding the arguments, I will try to be as unbiased as possible. That means if your opponent drops the argument, even if it is kind of sketchy, as long as it is reasonable enough, I will assume it is conceded and 100% risk/probability. Basically, tech > truth. However, I will not vote for extinction-level impacts as I find it very hard to buy, that is, unless it is conceded. But, in general, I will vote for "death" impacts like a certain group or amount of people will die and outweighs magnitude.

Also, if you feel uncomfortable in round, and feel you can no longer debate or if you are having an emergency, please tap the desk/table 3 times and I will stop the round and decide what to do from there.

Basically, just treat me like a parent judge! Speak slowly, clearly, and be kind to your opponent. Let's have a fair and educational debate!

Recommend not to spread. I tend to take notes all along and if I am not taking notes, that means I am unable to follow your arguments.

Be respectful to everyone around you.

LD - My background is as a LD debater twenty years ago and a judge/coach for four years starting in 2015. So I'm comfortable with use of jargon in round and with (usually, but I am a bit out of practice at the moment) a moderately high rate of delivery. Key is checking my facial expressions and checking to see if I am following your flow as you deliver your speeches/evidence.

I typically lean towards a Tabula Rasa style of evaluating the round: meaning I am open to hearing whatever arguments you and your opponent make during the round on the topic provided you link those back to impacts with your key voters/crystalize points from the line-by-line. Essentially tell me explicitly why you have won the arguments and won the round and what to weigh in the round.

I understand K's and have voted for them with proper explanation and persuasion.

That being said, I am also a bit of a traditionalist and the Value-Criterion piece of LD debate is something I believe to be unique to LD for a specific reason and should be part of how you approach the topic. I'm open to it not being a part of the constructive (in the case of K's and theory), but it would have to be very compelling or for a specific reason.

Other than that, keep it civil in the debate. Nothing hurts your persuasiveness more than being disrespectful and rude to your opponent.

I am a parent lay judge and like traditional debate. A few things I value in:

Congressional debate:

• clear logic, stats shouldn't overshadow your argument
• be engaged in the round, bring clash, address the most important issues
• signposting helps
• help me understand the bill and don’t expect me to already know what you’re talking about (this applies to all debaters in round, not just early round speakers)

LD debate:

• no spreading- clear and slow works better for me
• I prefer traditional arguments
• make sure your impacts are probable- not all impacts lead to nuclear war or extinction unless it is actually likely to occur

Both:

• be respectful, you can be aggressive without being rude
• if your opponent is twisting your words, make sure I know
• I pay attention to cross, ask questions to further your own argument

Good luck!

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.

Be respectful to your opponent.

Philosophy: I approach LD debate with an open mind and value clarity, coherence, and well-grounded arguments. My background is not deeply rooted in debate theory, so I appreciate clear and accessible explanations. I believe in fostering a positive and educational environment for all debaters.

Flowing: I will do my best to flow the debate and follow the arguments. However, please make sure to signpost and clearly articulate the structure of your case to help me stay organized.

Speed: I prefer a moderate speaking pace. If you notice me struggling to keep up, consider slowing down, especially during crucial points or complex arguments.

Framework: Clearly establish your framework and provide reasons why it should be preferred. I appreciate a straightforward framework that guides the debate, making it easier for me to evaluate your arguments.

Content: Present your arguments logically and provide real-world applications when possible. I value substance over pure technicality. Avoid heavy jargon, but if necessary, explain terms to ensure clarity.

Clash: Engage with your opponent's arguments directly. A well-articulated clash helps me in determining the strength of your case.

I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly.

Be polite and respectful.

Falsified evidence will result in an immediate loss of my ballot.

I value debates that establish strong links between evidences and claims.

Articulate the impact of your arguments.

Demonstrate adaptability during the debate, responding effectively to opponents' arguments.