bary.andrew@gmail.com

I am a 7 year veteran speaker and debater from 1999-2005.

I am now an intelligence analyst in the US military.

Most familiar with CX/Policy debate. Friendly to Public Forum.

To be clear, I can follow and flow spread debate, but I have a strong distaste for it. Debate is not just a game. It is an opportunity for educational and intellectual growth. Your round with me should represent that.

Showing respect for me, your partner, and your fellow competitors is paramount. Disrespectful or insulting words are not welcome.

Communication quality should be clear and concise.

Outlandish arguments and links for ADs/DAs are generally unwelcome without extremely compelling evidence. We are not going to have nuclear Armageddon because we lower Social Security eligibility 2 years.

Try to have fun. Be collegial with each other. Seek to learn something new. Stretch your argument to the next logical, reasonable level.

I am a parent judge who will let competitors structure their cases within the framewrok of the event rules as they see fit. Points will be awarded/deducted based on the following:

Logical Arguments & Evidence: The most important element of my scoring is to present fact based arguments with supporting evidence. Quality of the arguements is more valuable than quantity.

Respond to Opponent: The second most important element is how competitors respond to and adapt to opponents counterpoints. The better one defends their position or pokes holes that are difficult to defend (or cannot be defended) will sperate a close debate.

I expect opponents to respect each other and know their event's timeframes. Going over time by a few seconds is OK, but more than 7 or 8 seconds will lower your score.

I thank you for your bravery in public speaking. The variety of speech and debates is quite enjoyable for me. In my opinion speech and debate are about communicating clearly, effectively and efficiently through the use of words, verbal tones and body language.

In debates and extemporaneous speeches, I appreciate it when speakers begin by stating the question and by listing their main points before going in depth. I feel this helps the speaker keep a focus as well as prepares the audience to listen. I expect the main points to make logical sense as they are tied back to the original question and I expect them be supported by evidence.

In all speaking I expect clear, concise communication which is most likely to happen when the speaking speed does not exceed the listening speed. If a participant chooses to spread, then my listening skills are greatly diminished which results in me not being able to follow your reasoning and you will not be communicating your point.

Last, but not least, I expect all participants to treat each other with respect through both their words and actions. Disagreement is a big part of debates, but that is no reason to be denigrating to one another.

Delivery: smooth, confident, limit your stumbles.

Citations/Evidence: these are very important to me.

Dramatic delivery: a plus.

Logical flow to your speech or your argument: from beginning to end, did you sell me on your points, did you sell me on your solutions.

In debate: be civil, make your point, let them make theirs. This is speech and debate, not speech and bullying.
Talking faster does not gain you points with me - be clear, be concise…be persuasive!

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

LD is in my opinion the best, most academically challenging, and overall awesome form of debate. My evaluations of rounds are based on the following:

• spreading is NOT inherent to LD and if you would like to spread I suggest CX. I strongly detest spreading for a few reasons: spreading detracts from the academic conversation that is taking place, and at the most foundational level (in any debate) if your judge/audience cannot hear you then how would you ever expect to be judged adequately. Spreading greatly impacts your ability as a debater to present a clear, concise, and organized argument to your judge. Delivery is essential when effectively communicating with others and in my opinion spreading is the antithesis of that.

• FW is very important for me. The V and V/C are my guide as a judge on the lens in which I am evaluating the round and without those things it makes it harder for me to accurately judge the arguments that you present. Linking contentions back to your FW demonstrates to me that you’ve thought this through meticulously. I have no real preference for “ought’ implying a V of morality or “just” implying a V of justice. I am totally open to your interpretation of the V that you think best suits the debate it really just comes down to the presentation of the V and V/C and the “call back” to that into your contentions. I am down for a FW debate as long as it is relevant.

• Flow of case is important. You shouldn’t make arguments for arguments sake. By this I mean: did you use logic, supported by evidence with clear links and impacts to justify your contentions? Do you weigh impacts effectively and clearly? It is not enough to say “we outweigh on X impact” you need to tell me why your case outweighs.

Do a speech drop, I beg of you.

However, if you have no idea what speech drop is, I still want to be on the email chain.
johnsb43@unlv.nevada.edu

I do debate, I do speech, I do it all. Don't lie please, I'll know.

My quals:

Six and a half years of competitive debate experience lol, 3x Nat Qualifier, 2x NIETOC Qualifier, and currently doing LD collegiate debate at UNLV.

I've competed at both the local and nat circuit so I'm familiar with a wide variety of debates.

Basic stuff,

1. If you're hateful or discriminatory in any way, I'm not scared to report it.

2. Keep the round fair and safe, if I notice anything out of the ordinary it won't look good on you.

3. I understand phones are a part of our livelihoods but only use them for time, nothing else. I will also be keeping time but I won't call you out if you go over, you should know and my speaker points will reflect that if you continuously go over.

Now specific thingies:

First, I'm okay with and can follow spreading as long as I'm in a speech WORD doc. I'm not going to try to flow your speeches if I have no feasible way to read your cards.

Second, I don't typically vote on theory but especially not disclosure theory. While your case should be on your Wiki, an entire debate that's not even about the topic at hand is not going to be beneficial for any party.

Congress-

Talk frequently, ask good questions, be courteous, and let me know that you're there. If I don't remember your name by the end of the round, you will not be anywhere near the top 9. Clash is a big thing and if you're able to use it effectively and appropriately, it will be huge bonus points for you. Decorum is a vital part of this event so please maintain it.

Policy-

like disads and I LOVE counterplans. If you present me a really good counterplan, I'm more inclined to vote for you. That being said if you're the aff you have the burden of truth, please prove to me why your plan is the only solution. I'm fine with T but theory and K's are not my favorite. At the end of the day though, weigh your impacts please. I'm a big fan of impact calc and I am often swayed to the competitors with the better weight. Cross gets heated in policy and I don't flow it but don't start yelling and insulting your competitor. I'm also fine with speed but a tip for novices, if you don't actually know how to spread, don't risk it. Give me a voter, by the end of the round if I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, I won't be voting for you.

Public Forum-

Please make sure you impact weigh, I need to know your weighing mechanism by the end of the round. I know when args and cards have been dropped. Explain to me what the round comes down to, the summary and final focus are the most important speeches and it's where my vote usually lies. I go by what my flow says and I will vote for the more compelling arguments if both sides flow well. I like line-by-line since it's more organized and makes everyone's lives easier. Signpost please, makes everyone's lives easier. Cross is for clarification, use it to forward your case more effectively. I don't love speed in public forum but I can follow it. Ultimately, I leave the round very much in the competitors' hands, have fun, and convince me to give you my ballot.

LD-

I hate flex prep. Don’t do it in front of me please. Prep is not another cross x lol. While I’m not necessarily against traditional debate, I have a strong preference towards prog. Now on prog debate,I don't like tricks, anything that will make a round abusive is automatically a no from me. On the aff side, I need your link chains to function. Your advantages need to be cohesive enough that I can follow your line of reasoning and it doesn't seem like a stretch. You must also stick to your stock issues for the flow to favor you, your plan needs to solve for all of them and if it doesn't, you don't have a likely chance of winning. On the neg, I love turns, CPs and DAs are cool and if compelling, they're good offs for the neg. While I don’t think I’m a T hack, I have definitely been known to vote on T but if you go for it, you have to go all the way. Like I said previously I don't typically vote on theory unless it's a MAJOR rule violation so do with that what you will, and I don’t like K’s (this includes aff K’s), I would recommend avoiding Theory and K’s with me as your judge. Overall though, if you're able to prove that the aff doesn't solve for the stock issues, the round will likely flow in your favor.


SPEAKER POINTS (this is where cross is important ;)):

24- You violated one of my basic rules!!! (Going over time won't get you a 24 but using your phone illegally will D;)

25- You still violated one of my basic rules but it wasn't too bad

26- Your speeches were really over or under time and you weren't a strong debater in the round; attitude may also be a factor in a 26

27- Your speeches were poorly structured, your arguments weren't the most understandable, and your speaking style could be improved

28- You were a great debater and you showed strength in all areas but there's room for improvement

29- You were close to a perfect performance but you had a couple of errors that dropped you down

30- Perfect.

Alright y'all, that's really all that I have, remember that most importantly debate is supposed to be fun, so let's have a good round!

Parent judge.

Debate

• Be respectful. This is very important and a voting issue for me a judge.
• No ridiculous Ks or theories please.
  Do not spread. I probably know very little about the topic, so if you talk fast and I can’t understand, I have no choice other than to vote for the team that I can understand.
• Collapse the argument for me. I don’t keep track of individual arguments, so do the work for me.

Speech

• Speaking skills are important to me.
• Have fun with it.

I value clear well-explained arguments. Please avoid using jargon unless defined or explained. Do not assume I will know niche or less well-known topics, so unless clearly explained, I will not be able to evaluate them fully. In terms of speaking style, speak slowly and enunciate all your words. Confidence and passion while speaking are always great! But, most importantly, please don't spread. If you speak too fast, I will not be able to catch all your arguments and they will end up not being counted in round.

I value the persuasiveness and quality of arguments over quantity. If you can clearly explain all your arguments and effectively refute your opponents, I will most likely vote in your favor.

Side note: Clear structuring using methods such as numbering all your responses and points is much appreciated. It helps me as a judge follow the round better when there is a clear structure.

Please be respectful to each other.

Best of luck to everyone!

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Public Profile: https://linktr.ee/adamrose_xr_t

Educational Affiliations: Clark HS, IE University, National Academy Foundation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United Nations Academic Impact, United Nations Millennium Fellowship, United Nations System Staff College

Oratory Group Affiliations: IE University Debate Club; IEUMUN (Madrid, Spain), GIMUN (Geneva, Switzerland), HNMUN (Boston, USA), PragueMUN (Prague, Czech Republic), SPLIMUN (Lille, France), and WorldMUN (International).

Oratory Experiences: former President of IE Debate Club; Co-founder of IEUMUN; 5+ years of College-Level MUN as well as additional speaking events and competitions (Spanish Royal Artillery Debate, IEUSG Elections Debate, etc.)

Student General Guidelines:

Cues/Feedback: when judging competitively, I generally do not give cues or feedback regarding speed, pronunciation, or gesturing during speeches. Only at the conclusion will I give feedback. If a speech has time constraints, I may tap twice at 10 seconds left and tap repeatedly if going over time - these timed warnings may change given overall speech length. Students will be given notice prior to beginning their speech if such warnings will take place and at what intervals.
Style/Substance Preferences: I generally give more weight to substance over style when evaluating a speech, but I look for well-rounded performances. A monotone analysis without emotion will score equally poorly to that of a passionate act devoid of content. Aim to craft intelligent speeches with compelling messages that impart an impactful experience.
Objectives: when judging competitively, I encourage all students to aim to win. However, do not let competitiveness overshadow the event and what experiences you may take away from it. From honing your existing skills, to collaborating with new individuals, to learning a new ability, seek to gain something from having participated. Opportunities often arise from the places we least expect them.

I'm a newer judge and teacher. I vote on the most coherent, logical argument. You won't win me over on an emotional argument or one that does not make sense. I don't like logical fallacies. I like quantity over quality. I want you to to explain your contentions, not just state them.

I usually don't like spreading, but if I can understand you, it's okay. Since I'm newer, I do my best to take notes during your round to try to flow.

EMAIL FOR SPEECHES AND ALL QUESTIONS: Samuelshewmake005@gmail.com
Hallo- My name is Sam, and I did 4 years of high school debate, and am now competing at a collegiant level- I have competed in World Schools, LD, Congress, duo, and both extemps- but I am most familiar with LD, World Schools, and Congress.
If you have any specific questions about my judging style, feel free to ask me before rounds, but I will give you a few general notes first-

CONGRESS-
The most important thing in a congress room is demonstrating clash with the opposing side- if you want to impress me, demonstrate how your evidence or reasoning is contrary to the Aff/Negs
I know a lot of judges do not, but I actually pay attention to cross questions- ask as many as you can!

LD-
I am generally against spreading- if you feel like you HAVE to, go ahead, but I will slow you most likely, and you might lose me on parts of your flow if you arent slowing for it- I have hearing issues, so It will be harder for me to accurately flow all of your arguments if you are moving too fast for me

Being mean = terrible speaks.

Try and keep me entertained. Try and be energetic and do something every so often to get my attention. Bonus speaks if you can make me laugh

Argumentation(1-10 scale on how much I enjoy it.

Impact/Weighing (10/10)
IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS! ALWAYS GIVE ME IMPACTS AND IMPACT WEIGHING

T/Procedural : (9/10)

Framework: (7/10)

Theory: (Be careful, 6/10) (will never vote for disclosure theory)

Performance: (6/10) ] enjoy performance, but do not think it is the focus of LD generally speaking

K: (4.5/10) I need a real good explanation, will vote on them- I am not super familiar with K debating to begin with, so you might lose me if you go for a K

Narratives : (4/10) It's unfair for a opponent to defend against your own personal story. Use it as an impact not a voting issue and ill value it more.

Triggers: (X/10) Depends on violation - be realistic.

For LD I believe that fundamentally

1) Good framework is an ultimate truth and is the most important thing of the round.

2) it is the debaters job to prove a general principal.I am generous with AFF fiat but not unrealistic

3) the proof is in the logic, plans cant be proven and so use your skills to explain it to me with logical lines of thinking. Go over the line by line, give me good overviews and explain where your winning and why.

Safety

If you feel as though you cannot continue the round for any reason and have the ability to knock on the table 3 times please do so and the round will end immediately and a discussion can occur about where to go from there.

Parent/Coach at Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas with 7 mos. of tournament history.

Please go slower and impact your arguments that an average person will understand .

My note-taking focuses on key points in the arguments.

I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.

I value quality, well-applied, well-reasoned arguments over bucketloads of evidence. Evidence without application will not be afforded great weight. Poorly reasoned and supported arguments that are ignored by the other side because they are inferior and not worth the time or effort will not win the round simply because they are “dropped,” so don’t waste time telling me to flow dropped arguments to your side on that basis alone. Tell me why they matter, too. Roadmaps are awesome, especially when there is lots of ground to cover - and you don’t always have to start at the top. Hit the big issues first - I’ll be looking at your ability to identify those issues and give them their due weight and consideration in speaker ranks and round outcome. Spread if you must, but if I can’t understand what you’re saying, it’s not going in my flow. Similarly, spreading a ton of evidence with no application or analysis is worthless. Do not take creative license with cutting/interpreting/applying your evidence - if something sounds too perfect it probably is and I will be asking to see the original source material.

I'm a parent judge and have been judging since 2021.

I need to be able to understand you. I will judge your speaking abilities, logic throughout the case, and how much you know your topic. Don't just read off your computer screen. Understand your argument, listen to your opponent, and adapt your case.

I understand that sometimes the aff/neg may have a harder case to make and will not let that or my personal opinions sway who wins.

Be respectful of your opponent(s). While they are speaking you should be listening, taking notes, and/or preparing your arguments. 

I expect you to know the rules for your events. You can time yourself. I will time you, but will not stop you. If you go over by a few seconds that is fine, but more than that may cause you to lose points.