Traditional LD. Contentions are secondary to the framework debate.

How I analyze the rounds:

First, debate quality as the first consideration (which is typically a wash in upper level open, unless there is a solid framework debate to consider).

Second, framework analysis for internal consistency using my own knowledge and experience as a philosophy professor. If the framework is internally flawed, you will lose. A consistent framework that I find detestable will not be penalized.

Third, anything else, nitpicky things, clear falsities (particularly ones that are foundational to the arguments).

I'm fairly familiar with all types of debate and the rules associated with them. I'm alright with speed, put a lot of weight on impacts and flow, and ask that the debate is professional (i.e. avoid ad hominem, attack arguments not opponents).

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

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

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

My model for great debate is not focused on terms that have become cultural conventions. I dislike the terms "voters," "flow," and "cards." Great debate should focus on ideas; that is to say, I do not mind the philosophy of explaining to a judge why you won, why arguments do and do not connect, and evidence that is germane, but I do mind that debaters expect certain things when they use those terms.

I like debate that focuses on the issue and remains topical whenever possible. I do not like when debate becomes a highly technical examination of who understands the cultural conventions better.

If you gamify the rules, like accusing an opponent of abuse, dropping an argument, or having a plan in PF, this will affect my decision. You should be EXTREMELY sure that these violations have occurred before using these terms.

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow; recent, relevant, honest Evidence as well.

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Who I am:

Hi all, I am a retired coach, who now supports this activity through tabroom management. I have coached and judged all Main Events as well as most supplementals. I spent my last few years coaching working with World Schools debate. I really enjoy the style. 

Generally:

I will flow but in worlds specifically I will not base a ballot on a dropped argument. POIs are important and a critical use of time for both sides in the debate and weigh their strategic use heavily. Obviously the event is different than other debate events, please treat it as such. 

I am a parent judge and have no prior personal experience in debate. I have judged at numerous tournaments over the past 3 years and have judged each of the debate events.

The strength and persuasiveness of your arguments are the most important, but specifically I watch for three things: organization, performance and clash.

Organization: I want to be able to track all of your arguments. Make it obvious when you are beginning a new argument or rebutting one of your opponents. Signposting is helpful.

Performance: Act confident, speak clearly, stand up straight and look up from your computer. Do not speak too fast. Use enunciation and inflection in your voice. If you're speaking so fast that I can't follow what you're saying your argument is wasted.

Clash: This is a debate event and I want to see debate! I watch for rebuttals of specific arguments. Signposting during rebuttal is also helpful. I also watch how well you handle yourself during crossfire. Do you ask intelligent questions, when answering questions are you able to respond knowledgeably and confidently?

Be professional. You can debate and clash and probe your opponent's arguments without being rude, offensive or immature.

Public forum is supposed to be argued as if you are in front of a non-specialist or citizen judge. That's me! If you are debating in public forum, your arguments and debate style should conform to that standard and it's important to me that you understand that.

In Congress I like to see extemporaneous arguments that keep up with the flow of the debate and respond to previous speakers. If you're looking down at your computer reading your speech that tells me that you aren't keeping up with the movement of the debate. I like to see advancement of the argument and don't want to hear the same argument repeated that has already been given by another speaker. I also look for how you respond in questioning.

In LD I care more about strong quality arguments than the value criterion. That being said, since there is a value criterion, you should make it clear how your arguments connect back to yours.

"The subversive intellectual enjoys the ride

and wants it to be faster and wilder;

she does not want a room of his or her own,

she wants to be in the world, in the world with others

and making the world anew."

-Jack Halberstam, The Wild Beyond: With and For the Undercommons

I love debate. Enough to give it 6 years of my life and likely many more. I have made a point to engage in every format and have made pretty good progress in that goal. I love the tech of Policy, NFA-LD, NPDA, but do heavily enjoy rhetorical presentation in forms like BP or PF. I'm currently a college debater and am always learning new things, but I promise to listen closely, judge with as open of a mind as possible, and offer feedback to help you improve.

I view debate as competitive story-telling. Both sides are here to tell me a story about the topic. This effects how I view most questions in debate. As a quick outline toward earning my ballot, however, I care about three things:

1) The Contents of Your Arguments

2) Why they are Important

3) How they Compare and Interact with Your Opponent's Arguments

If you articulate to me these three things better than your opponent, I will very likely vote for you. Other than that, I want to hear your voice in the story that you want to tell. Please run the arguments and have the debate that you are most comfortable with, in the style that you are most comfortable with. I love new ideas and I love clash. If you can promise these two things, I will be entertained.

While like most judges, I will vote for an argument if it's clearly won, here's an FAQ list for how I tend to lean on different controversial issues in the community:

Tech -----x-------------- Truth

Good Analytic --x----------------- Bad Card

Contextualized links --x----------------- Uncontextualized Studies

New ideas -----x----------------- Prewritten arguments I've heard 1000 times

Public Forum:

While I appreciate the more rhetorical framework that PF is supposed to exist in, I like concrete impacts and a story for why those impacts matter and how they relate to the resolution. I love evidence comparison, impact analysis, and analytical examples.

I'm likely more open to theory or more progressive argumentation than your typical judge, but I love traditional argumentation as well. Tech isn't a tool for bullying or obfuscation. The burden of proof is on you to explain your argument to your opponents. If your opponents don't get your argument, that's your fault.

An argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact for me to consider it. This weird 'tricks' trend where teams sneakily toss in an independent line about voting for them isn't tech or line-by-line debate. It will only lower your speaks and my opinion of you as a debater.

I lift my pen up and stop flowing after the time for your speech runs out(I time independently).

Don't be rude to your opponents during Crossfire and allow the other team roughly equal speaking time(I keep track and it effects speaks).

Also when it comes to framing what's in the resolution/what it looks like, I am far more convinced by probability evidence("The Japanese Prime Minister says Article 9 Revision would be this") then debate theory analysis("this is the most fair ground for a debate"), please still make voter impact comparisons however if this ends up being the clash but I'd prefer to at least start in the lit base for determining what the resolution means.

On the "sticky defense" conversation. I like arguments to be extended in the summary. That being said, I don't need you to repeat word for word every argument made. For instance "extend our 5 points of defense on their first contention" would work well for me especially if you then contextualize those 5 points to the weighing.

On Kritiks, I'm honestly uncertain what that means in context of Public Forum debate. Can you make arguments or entire contentions based in "critical" theories of power? Absolutely!! In fact, when I debate in PF those are my favorite arguments to make. However, in PF you are explicitly given ground to defend which can run you into uniqueness problems. For instance, on the Japan Article 9 resolution, you can absolutely tell me that deterrence is part of a militarist mindset and even if it does technically "work" to solve an individual problem like Chinese aggression in the South China Sea that it creates a type of society or outlook that is very negative. This works because it makes sense to me on face that revising Article 9 would be a dramatic departure toward a militarist mindset/society then the Status quo. However, if you were to tell me that capitalism is bad, I'd agree with you but become confused as to how Capitalism would be any different between the squo and an article 9 revision. In plan-based formats like Policy this is solved by creating a counterplan(called an alternative) that shifts away from Capitalism but I'm unsure how you'd resolve the uniqueness issue in PF. However, if you think your argument makes sense in a PF paradigm, then I'd love to hear it.

Policy

I want clash and comparison, not scripts and uncontextualized framework fights.

Like most judges, I view the Negative as having the burden of rejoinder of a prepared affirmative opponent. What this means in practice:

Conditionality, I lean Aff. 1-2 CPs and 1 Alt plus the squo is very reasonable for fruitful engagement over the Affirmative. Every added Counter-advocacy after that is exponentially more potential negative worlds added and I lean more to depth over breadth when it comes to clash and do believe complaints about time from the Aff can be very valid(Having only 30 seconds in the 2AC per CP for instance is often not a very productive debate). That being said, if you win the condo debate, you win it and I will do my best to evaluate it fairly (see theory for more).

I define dispositionality as "if there is offense on the shell, the Neg can't just kick it." it's my default view on disads and I could be persuaded to apply it to CPs if the Aff put in the work. I will not reanimate turned Das though if they're not extended in the 1 and 2ar. You have to make the strategic decision to go for them.

On sneakier Counterplans like Consult, Process, Actor, Delay; I need direct solvency advocates to buy these as legitimate and I need an explanation of how they are functionally competitive. If consulting is a ten minute phone call from the President, I don't see why that can't happen while Congress passes the plan. If no one runs theory, then I'll take it for granted but I'd encourage your opponents to go for it.

Perms are advocacies. While they are a test of competition, don't think of them as a point of terminal defense but an explanation of what the world with both the Plan and Counterplan would look like. If the Counterplan isn't at all competitive then the world is only better off, however, even if there is functional tradeoffs to the Perm, I could be convinced the net benefits outweigh. This means I would like it if 1AR and 2AR extensions of the perm fleshed out what the world of the perm would look like and how it resolves the net benefits of the CP.

2AR and 2NR collapses need to pick an advocacy and tell me why that is better. I will not judge kick a CP for you unless there is explicit theory telling me otherwise (as in interp with standards/voters). Same thing with the Aff, you get either the plan or a perm, not both. Your job in the last speech isn't to show how you've won the debate via a thousands cuts, but to synthesize all the elements in the debate and give me a clear story of why I should vote for you.

Kritiks:

Generally, I love critical analysis. Like most things, I prefer specific judge direction and comparison.

I need something to give me uniqueness usually an alternative. Alternatives can be as simple as a re-orientation or be full counterplans, but if I buy they have questionable solvency, your kritik impacts become non-unique really fast. I think in some ways, judges let alternatives get away with murder when I think alternative solvency should be a serious consideration when it comes time to vote.

Ideally, framework just tells me how to evaluate the round and contextualizes the links and alt to let me know what level I am evaluating these on (pre-fiat discourse, policymaking, knowledge frames, etc.). I love framework that actually gives fair opportunity to both sides and just lets me know how to compare a plan text to a re-orientation alternative. I dislike I-win statements that get introduced in the 2NC just in case the Neg want to kick the alt. Kicking the alt can be a winning strategy but I would encourage the Aff to point out that if there's no solvent alternative to capitalism than producing anti-capitalist knowledge frames probably doesn't have the planet-saving potential the Neg claims.

That being said, I believe in systemic causality way more than brinks and love root-cause argumentation. However, Serial policy failure means nothing unless contextualized to this Aff's policy.

Links should be specific and compelling. The more generic or nonspecific the link, the more convinced I am that a perm is net-beneficial. A link of omission unless under very specific circumstances is simply not a link. Framework will also majorly affect how seriously I take your link. If I buy material proximal causes are what I should care about, rhetoric becomes a lot harder to justify as important. This is also why the Aff arguing there's a different root cause to an ideology that the Neg doesn't solve can go a long way in applying defense to the link and alt.

For the Affirmative on kritiks, specificity applies as well. If the Neg's position is that capitalism creates a harmful ontology, I don't want to hear about how capitalism has been good historically for material luxuries. I think kritiks can have this weird mystical aura where we just assume the Aff now has the burden of defending all of capitalism but that's often not the case. The more specific the defense of your plan, the more I'm likely to buy it.

Critical Affirmatives:

I despise what's become known as the clash of civilization. I think there is value to exploring the stories of the topic. I've always thought that the scope of the topic being defined as the USFG is dumb. However, I think a limitless topic is harmful to clash. The way I currently see it, debates are storytelling and topics are genres. The farther away from the genre your story is, the harder it is for me to learn about the genre or to see clash with opposing stories. The less germane to the topic you are, the easier it is for the Neg to convince me that clash and literature education have been lost.

If you are a T-USFG team that reads the same scripts about predictability and fairness with no contextualization or comparison to the Aff than I am a probably a bad judge for you.

However, if you are a T-USFG team that comes prepared with a TVA (topical version of the Affirmative) or an articulation of why a more restrictive understanding of the resolution is best for debate or its participants in a way that's comparative to the Aff's impacts than I'm a great judge for you. I don't want to be left with a situation where I have to decide whether accessing radical research or advocacies is more important than predictability, if this is the situation I will likely lean Aff but if you give me a way to weigh clash against alternative epistemologies than I'll defer to the weighing in the round. Just remember that material death is different than social death when designing the TVA.

I believe judges have to take t-usfg framework seriously so as to have predictable core generic for the negative. Therefore, neither team should expect me to do the heavy lifting for them in the framework debate. Do not imply impacts, make them explicit and compare them!

Fairness is not a voter unless fleshed out. I'm unsure what fairness looks like in debate. By design it is an asymmetric game and in some ways, the different positions people find themselves in is very cool and educational. My worst fear for debate is becoming replaceable with AI that autogenerates cases. We are all different humans, with different styles, brains, and perspectives. I want to hear what is interesting to you.

For the Aff, Framework for Clash is awesome. Providing a debate framework that still allows Neg clash and good educational debate to happen will start to evaporate the Neg's offense. Being able to provide Neg ground for engagement will do wonders for both speaks and overcoming ground and predictability standards.

Outside of framework, I would love Neg clash on the core of the 1AC. There's a lot of literature out there and a well-put together negative strategy on a critical affirmative would be at the very least rewarded with high speaks and seems like a much better way to win as well. Attack their assumptions, attack their methods, provide counter-advocacies. Tell me an alternative story.

To evaluate these debates, I compare offense and whether the 1AC advocacy is net better or worse for the world. Usually the impacts (such as harmful ideologies) are attached to the squo which means solvency is important for both sides (solvency can take many forms beyond traditional policymaking including discourse, affect, debate community impacts, etc) . This doesn't mean the 1AC advocacy has the burden of solving all of white supremacy to gain offense (discourse is probably a linear impact scenario), however, it does mean that I need a specific analysis of what the harm is and what the 1AC advocacy does to solve them. For example, if whiteness is actually constructed top-down by political economic structures, then poetry probably doesn't do anything to solve those harms.

Attached to this, if you choose to read an argument in debate, you've invited others to clash. The Aff chooses the conversation and have invited the Neg. I dislike the idea that 1ACs or certain parts of 1ACs are too personal to be involved in the debate. If that's the case, please save yourself the trauma and leave that out of the speech.

My threshold for dismissing "conservative" arguments is very high. Especially if I'm not sure what a conservative even is anymore. If an argument wouldn't get a professor or teacher fired, I think it's educational to learn how to clash with it.

"No perms in a methods debate" doesn't intuitively make sense to me with the caveat that I think that 1ACs should be bounded to their assumptions. If the Aff assumes social death is caused by libidinal investment in institutions, it feels weird that their advocacy would shift to include institutions without in some way having different solvency. Tl;dr I need an articulation from the Negative why one method of activism would trade-off with another.

I am interventionist on Independent voter issues and I judge based on good faith attempts. If you are a team that relies on independent voter issues against the Neg's clash in the debate rather than on articulating your affirmative harms and solvency than I am probably not the best judge for you. Obviously if a Neg team really goes for oppression/dehumanization good or openly racist tropes I will stop the round, but negating the 1AC in a way the Aff didn't expect/want is not constitutive of a procedural issue, neither is a microaggression that we can resolve informally. Also I'd prefer to deal with micro-aggressions w/o the ballot, if a team is actually attempting to do harm in the round than that's a debate safety issue and we should probably stop the round, if it's based on ignorance I would honestly prefer to just stop the debate for a minute, explain the micro-aggression and suggest an alternative way for the team to articulate what they mean rather than make it a procedural debate for the rest of the round. I won't always have the keenest eye and could be ignorant myself, so if there is an issue bothering you that you'd like to address, feel free to interrupt a speech or wait until the speech is over than just mention you'd like it if an argument was made in a more equitable way. We're all learners here and each of us deserve safety in the debate space without the weird competitive game getting in the way.

If you care, in the 2013 NDT Finals, I'd have voted for Emporia SW over Northwestern LV (not that anyone would ever ask me to judge a round when I was in Middle School). In the 2002 CEDA Finals I would've voted for Michigan State CM over Fort Hays RR. Both were very close debates for good reason, but that's just how I fall as a judge in the way I currently see debate and I'm down to discuss debate history with you after the round.

Theory: It's an organized way of explaining that your opponents have somehow violated the rules or desirable norms of debate. I will admit that I have always felt policed by theory so run it at your own risk. That being said, if you win, you win. I have voted in favor of the interp more than the counterinterp despite my own embarrassment at that fact.

Standards are links, voters are impacts, and your interp is the uniqueness. I think there is a tendency of judges to not vote based on the flow and instead glaze their eyes over as if theory is just an invitation to listen to mechanical dialogue then vote up their personal favorite speaker. Though it may get messy, I will do my best to evaluate each theory shell as it's own flow in an offense/defense paradigm.

Also theory is more organized way of making a traditional rhetorical argument around what should be allowed in debate which means I don't necessarily need someone to articulate the debate norm that's been violated as an "interp." More rhetorical substitutes such as "abuse" do just fine as long as I can trace your argument to a rule, a violation, and an impact to that violation.

"We Meets" are terminal defense as it renders the impact nonunique. I am tired of teams not taking the argument seriously and judges letting debaters get away with some of the worst interpretations I have ever seen. If your opponent is arguably topical within your interpretation, I find it hard to take your voters rhetoric seriously. If you are going to run theory in front of me please have a specific interpretation and violation. As for the Aff, if you want to be clever with the We Meet arguments then please do so. To me the violation is the most important part of the t-shell and I wish teams reprioritized it. IT IS A VOTING ISSUE! Expect me to take your interpretation and violation seriously. That part of the flow is my starting question for every theory debate.

I am a high school English teacher with an extensive background in persuasive strategies and logical fallacies. I like organized, concise and articluate arguments, and I will be listening for credible evidence to support all claims. I have been judging debate for 6+ years, and while I understand debate theory arguments, I prefer the debate to focus on solutions and outcomes rather than loopholes. Strong delivery skills are a must!

Debate paradigm:

For all formats, I focus on solid argumentation and skillful use of rhetoric. Framework is important to me. Tell me how you plan to win your argument and follow through. I do not usually favor competitors who try avoiding the topic by focusing on loosely connected tangents or technicalities. When giving voters, I do not enjoy hearing a list of individual points won. Instead, I favor big-picture summaries of what you have accomplished in the debate focused on how each individual argument supports your side of the resolution. Avoid the over-use of debate-specific terms, like which points "flow through". You should be able to tell me in lay terminology how you've won this debate. Especially be careful of claiming your opponent "dropped your case" or similar claims. If you claim this and it isn't true, this will affect my decision.

Speak clearly and with sufficient volume that I do not need to guess what you said. Courtesy towards your opponent is important to me. You should be able to argue without resorting to name-calling or caustic accusations. Communication skills matter as well. If I feel opponents are rhetorically matched, nonverbal and vocal communication skills may break the tie for me.

Most of all, I hope you all feel comfortable with me as your judge enough to enjoy the competition. Please know that if you have any concerns or questions, I will happily listen and help you in any way that I can. If you have preferred pronouns or other needs, don't hesitate to let me know. I want to treat you with courtesy, too!

Format-specific paradigms:

Lincoln Douglas:

Value and criterion debate are crucial. I will heavily consider those competitors who successfully advocate their value and criterion over their opponent’s. One can lose the flow but win the value/criterion debate and still win the round.

I only partially flow, and I only judge partially based on the flow. A dropped argument is still considered poor argumentation to me, but not all arguments carry the same weight, and just because a contention is glossed over does not mean the entire debate was lost. I will expect more rhetorically sound, evidence-based contentions to be the priority.

Some competitors try adapting strategies from other debate formats to LD, such as running kritik or spreading. I do not favor such strategies. I focus on the moral argumentation, on rhetorically sound argumentation of the assigned topic, and on clear, professional communication skills.

This paradigm will generally apply to Policy, LD, and PF. (and even BQ)

I will judge each round based on the arguments presented in that round. I am looking for good argumentation on each side. I want to see well constructed arguments that are relevant to the Resolution. If neither side brings up Value, Criterion, one of your contentions, etc don’t tell me it is a voter. Voters will be issues we have discussed within the debate. Arguments made will hold the most weight. If it isn’t a contested point in the debate, it likely won’t be a deciding issue. However, If no on case attacks were made, that lack of attacks could be a voter.

I want to see clash, but I expect you to remain civil and kind. Things I consider to be unsportsmanlike are eye-rolling, raising voices, being rude or intentionally obtuse. For example: Don’t make eye contact with the judge and roll your eyes when your opponent is speaking. Don’t scoff when your opponent says something you disagree with, don’t pump fists when your opponent says something that you can turn or that sets you up with a perfect argument. I should never feel like anyone, including myself, is being yelled at. If you are being asked a question that is damaging to your case- don’t ask for it to be rephrased 10 times- that just wastes time and alerts me that it damages your case. It draws more attention than quickly answering and moving to the next question. My recommendation: Find a way to answer it that doesn’t blow your case or find a way to answer it and move on.

I keep a detailed flow and will use that when determining the winner of the round. Signposting is preferred to Roadmap. I don't mind both, but sign posting is more important. Signposting each argument will be crucial to making sure your arguments end up where they belong, if you leave me guessing where the argument goes, it may not end up where you intend it. For example: "Moving on to Inherency/ Contention 1/Value, etc." That tells me where on the flow your evidence goes. If you tell me after then it is too late for me to flow it.

When refuting an attack made against your case, don’t just tell me to extend the argument from your case as your refutation. The point is under attack, so even if you are using the same argument/evidence/idea there is necessary argumentation needed from you to tell me WHY your evidence/idea/argument is the superior idea for that point. Telling me to extend something without doing the damage control after an attack is not repairing the damage done to your case. Even if you think the opponent’s argument is weak- repair and defend your position.

Logical reasoning has a strong place in debate, and I like to see your ideas logically presented, with supporting evidence. Make connections and well constructed arguments.

Crossfire and cross examination are integral parts of debate and I always like a well controlled cross period. I don’t typically flow cross, but I will be paying attention. If you make a strong point in cross, or set up a good argument, bring it up in your next speech or it won’t be a deciding factor.

Theory/Kritiks: I am a stock issues/resolution based judge. I want to see the resolution debated, running theory or kritiks is at your own risk. They will be received by me as you not having any relevant, on case arguments. I do not like them so I don’t recommend it. I can usually spot a disguised theory or kritik argument, so like I said- it’s a big risk.

Speaking quickly is ok, spreading is not. If you are speaking quickly, clear signposting and clear tag lines are essential. If you choose to speak quickly, I expect that you are able to clearly articulate each word-enunciate. If your words are a jumbled mess or become mispronounced due to speed, you shouldn't be speaking that quickly.

Regarding Tag-teaming during cross examination in policy and crossfire in PF (excluding grand crossfire)- Each person should be able to answer their own questions. Answering for your partner demonstrates a lack of faith in their ability/knowledge and doesn't present as a strong team of equals.

Hello! My paradigm will be broken down into a general overview of how I judge and specifics for each main event is listed below. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round starts.

I don't typically judge on this point, but remember to respect everyone in the round. This means not insulting people, respecting people's pronouns and prefered names. Generally, don't be rude and disrespectful. If there is a major issue in this regard I will take it to tab and contact the coaches and individuals who need to know. I don't expect this to be an issue, but I do want to set the expectation.

I did debate in high school so I am very familiar with all of the events. I primarily competed in Policy and LD. I'm primarily an impact and flow judge. Show me clear links to the impacts and how they are relevent to the round. Make sure that arguments aren't dropped, and if they are I know why and that it's intentional. I don't mind if people speak quickly, as long as all the judges (if there are multiple) and competitors agree before the round begins. I'm not a huge fan of spreading, mostly because I have often seen it used as a way to overwhelm the other team and win because of dropped arguments instead of debating in any real depth. I think it is important to have multiple different arguments to present, but I do prefer quality over quantity. If you set up a SpeechDrop or email chain please include me in it. Overall, be nice, have fun and try your best!

Policy:

Policy was the event I did the most in high school, so while I may not be familiar with the topic, I am well aware of the rules. I like impact debates with a solid focus on the flow. However, don't sacrifice comms for flow or impacts. I don't mind Counter Plans or Topicality arguments, but I'm not a huge fan of Kritiks. If you decide to run a K, make sure you understand it very well and have a solid link and alt. I don't usually vote on Ks and I often find them to be more trouble than they're worth. Many times people don't understand what they're saying and missinterpret the authors they're citing. I will know if you don't understand what you're saying, it will affect the quality of the debate, and impact your chances of winning. I like seeing a lot of clash on both sides of the flow. Make the round interesting, show me exactly why the plan is either a great or a terrible idea.

LD:

I love the value and criterion debates in LD. I like a lot of clash on both sides of the flow, but don't forget the value and criterion. I am a more traditional person when it comes to LD because I don't like counter plans or counter advocacies and I like seeing the moral side of the debate. Impacts are important, but in LD morality is the primary focus. Please don't try to turn the round into policy or PF. Those events have their places, LD is not one of them. I have yet to see a Kritik in an LD round that needed to be there. Often the arguments in the K could just be run as part of the case, so I'm not a huge fan.

PF:

I didn't really do PF in high school, so I am less familiar with the rules and standards. Regardless, I like seeing a solid framework that is upheld in the round and a solid flow. I do like impacts and clear link chains. I do prefer when frameworks are more than Cost Benefit Analysis, but it's not a requirement to win.

Michelle Buchanan

Preferred Debate Styles: Policy, Lincoln Douglas (6 years Judging Experience)

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?

Well- developed arguments are much appreciated. Please speak slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Arguments should each be addressed individually. Have credible evidence to back up your arguments.

How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?

Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters.

How Should Debaters approach Evidence?

Follow the state rules and guidelines.

How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?

You may tag team, but keep it minimal and be quiet. I prefer if you write things down.

How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position?

I put a lot of emphasis on a well developed value and criteria. Reference it through the debate and use arguments throughout to support it.

What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?

Empirical and philosophical that makes sense!

Please explain your views on kritical arguments

I don’t like them. Do not use them. Stick to the resolution.

How should debaters run on case arguments?

Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples. I want to hear a well structured plan and how it will solve.

How should debaters run off case arguments?

Unless it is part of the resolution, Do not link to nuclear war or extinction. You will lose. Do not go off topic.

How should Debaters run theory arguments:

The focus should be winning the debate and supporting your position on the resolution. Do not attack a persons style or flaws of methods.

What other preferences do you have, as a judge.

Respecting your opponent and showing professionalism from the moment you enter the room to the time you leave is critical to me. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful.

I’m a new coach and judge and consider myself a “communications” judge. Please speak at a pace that allows me to flow your argument. Polite and respectful debate appreciated!

Mahalo!

I am a 'tab' judge. Teams/speakers must show me why their arguments should be voted on as opposed to assuming I will vote on them based on my own beliefs. I am a former TOC circuit policy debater and current head coach of a high school debate program. I am fine with all types of arguments, and very familiar with debate jargon and procedures.

I am typically fine with speed as well.

Please give clear voting issues a the end of the round.

Please signpost clearly.

Please give a brief off time road map prior to all speeches with the acceptation of the first affirmative.

Who am I:

I am the head speech & debate coach at Idaho Falls HS. I've been a head coach for 10 years, and also competed in high school and college.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot for any type of debate:

1) Win the flow. If you drop an issue in a speech, do not bring it back up. In PF, dropped arguments are technically ok (you gotta summarize after all). Just make sure to communicate to me on why it is good/bad/unimportant that an argument was dropped.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponent clean concedes an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Weigh your impacts! This is a great way to win the ballot with me.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outweigh argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Courtesy. If you are not kind, courteous, and ethical to your opponent, you will receive lower speaker points. I believe that debaters should be able to win on the flow and do so in a kind and professional manner. If the round is extremely close, I often use courtesy and ethics as a tiebreaker.

5) Speed: I think that it's easier to have a cleaner debate when it is regular conversational speed, but I understand when you have to pick it up a bit. Not a fan of spreading.

6) Comms: The more I coach and teach, the more I find myself being persuaded by stronger and more polished speakers. Don't forget about good speaking techniques!

CONGRESS:

Good congress involves speaking extemporaneously, using evidence and analysis, and having excellent speaking skills. I will rank you higher if you are kind, yet strong in your quesitoning answers. Good congress people should be present throughout the round the round through both speeches and questions. I recognize that preset recency can be difficult, so make sure you are both asking questions, and raising your placard to speak often!

LD DEBATE:

Value/Value Criterions

I think these are necessary in LD debate. I am a more traditional LD debate, but i'm open to progressive ideas (or CPs). Make sure to use your V/CR throughout the round. These are usually a large weighing mechanism for me, so make sure I know why I should prefer your V/CR and how you use that to win the round.

K's/Theory

I don't prefer Ks, but recognize the need for theory at times. I prefer traditional LD debate, with a focus on values and value criterions.

Plan's/Counterplans

I'm much more accepting of CPs than Ks in LD. I understand when a CP is necessary to run as the neg.

POLICY DEBATE:

I tend to be a more traditional-style policy judge, as in I judge following traditional rules. However, I'm still very open to arguments. I don't love Ks, mostly because I think debating the heart of the topic is important. I love a good T shell when the aff isn't topical (you won't find me penalizing you for T...unless you run a million as a time suck. Then I might not like it). Line-by-line and sign posting are key. I would say I'm about a 5 out of 10 on a speed scale for policy. If you go too quickly, you will notice me flowing less, so be aware.

PF DEBATE:

I love good public forum debate! I think good PF is a balance between amazing argumentation (line-by-line, direct clash, etc.) and killer speaking skills. I think good teamwork with your partner is very important. Treat your partner like a person who deserves respect. Both partners should be involved in Grand Cross. I prefer crystalization over line-by-line in the summary, but I won't punish you for a line-by-line refutation summary. Weighing is crucial in PF. Tell me WHY I should prefer your arguments and impacts so that I don't have to intervene with my own thoughts during deliberation. Debaters that don't tell the judge exactly what to vote on andwhy are just inviting the judge to choose whatever they want, leading to intervention.

Calling for evidence during in-person rounds

From the judge---

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

From your opponent---

I will not time you to give evidence to your opponents, but I will time you if you start reading the evidence and analyzing it. I believe that should be done in prep. If you are taking too long to find/give evidence to your opponents, I will start your prep time. So be quick!

Have an excellent round!! Ask me any questions about my paradigm before the round starts!

My paradigm is pretty simple. I like a few detailed arguments instead of many brief arguments. Be clear! Be courteous and be ethical. Convince me, and I will vote your way.

Looking for students who speak clearly and address all of opponents contentions.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 29 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 23 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for over a decade. I expect professionalism and good argumentation. POs should be efficient; keep recency and precedence; prevent suspension of the rules; and be strict but KIND.

In my ~9 years being involved in Debate, I've come to understand debate as competitive storytelling. In a round, you're essentially telling me a story about the resolution: who is effected by the res, what happens when we adopt the res, and why that matters. Whichever side best articulates a world post resolution - as well as telling me why that world is good or bad in comparison to the other side's world - wins the ballot.

I want to do the least amount of work possible when making my decision. Your voter speech should make it clear to me what arguments I am voting on, and how I am weighing them in the round. The more that you leave the judge in the dark, the higher the chance the round is just a coin toss. Don't let that happen, make it crystal clear why you win. I don't want to have to sift through the flow to find your winning argument.

Generally, I'm fine with whatever arguments you want to run (Kritiks, CPs, Theory) in any format, as long as you justify that argument well enough. Love me some critical arguments, but please don't just drop "hyperreal" or some equally obscure term and expect your judges and opponents to know what that is.

Any questions before or after round, just ask!

cmcurtiss@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

Hey guys!

My name is Madison and I’m super excited to be your judge. I am a former debater, so that means I am good with speed and jargon. However, despite my debate background, I am a comms judge. I will flow the debate, but ultimately I’m most concerned about your arguments being cohesive and making sense. Part of this means actually explaining your cards, as well as using your framework through your debate if you provide one. As a former debater, I also know how important respect is. Clash is important and is a natural side effect of the activity, but it needs to be clash over the arguments and not an attack against your opponent. I am cool with self timing as long as it’s within the tournament rules, but my timer will be the official timer. If anyone has anymore questions, feel free to ask me before we get started. Other than than that, I wish everyone the best of luck!

Speakers who are articulate, well-spoken, and have a strong backing of evidence will fair better in round.-Judge Aaron Dossett.

Caleb Drechsel - competed in Speech and Debate 2008-2011; 5+ year coach.

Tl;dr:

More traditional than progressive, though I enjoy a good kritic

Quality > Quantity - a clearly spoken word is more effective than speed-reading gibberish.

If I didn't flow it, I didn't find it important enough (or I missed it) -rarely votes on flow-points

Claim, Warrant, IMPACT

VOTERS - much good, very nice, more please.

---

As a debater, coach, educator, and community member, I believe debate is a form of collaborative truth-seeking. As such, I am not here to count points. I am here to listen, learn, and follow where the truth points me... And decide who won my ballot!

You and your opponent are my guides in that truth. I take you both as assumed-experts on the resolution, and so a great way to win my trust is to show yourself competent on the topic and context. Debate is not always an either/or decision. I may agree and want a resolution but withhold my vote because sufficient doubt was cast on it, or I'm not comfortable with the reasoning for it. That being said, I may have great concerns about a resolution/bill, but the NEG/CON didn't give me sufficient reason to justify those reservations.

It's what you say... Not what you "meant" to say. I try to be aware of the curse of my own knowledge so that I do not fill in your arguments. I hope I can summarize your argument at the end of the round, so give me signposts, key phrases, and impacts to track. I am less concerned with whether or not your opponent hit every one of your contentions. I am more concerned that I can follow your argument, that I am not having to fill in gaps because I could not understand or comprehend your thoughts. My voting record shows I am swayed more by clear, informed arguments than spread, jargon-heavy contention-bashing.

...And how you say it. Debate is communication and connection between you, your audience, and your message. Treat your judge and opponent with respect - both in your words, behavior, and tone. If spreading your case requires you to shout, spit, gasp, or disconnect from your words, it probably will influence my decision. Consider the irony and dissonance in shouting "IT'S FINE!" and the confusion of describing the theoretical end of the world in the same voice you'd order a burger.

My RFDs tend to follow this pattern: The AFF argued the resolution by [my summary of their position]; the Neg tried to argue/show [my summary of their position]. I voted for the [winner] because...[RFD]; I would have voted for the [loser] if... [feedback].

If time allows, I try to briefly (1 sentence) disclose verbally a strength I saw in each case (though time rarely allows in tournaments outside of finals), and what I would offer for improvement - either in the case itself or in delivery. I recognize I am one judge and a specific audience member, so please take any feedback or suggestions accordingly.

Below are some more specifics in my mindset around different debate types:

Lincoln-Douglas... is a value debate. Cards (evidence) help us relate reality to the values and moral obligations that guide us. Philosophies are frameworks of thought and morality, but ultimately, we must consider the actual and practical impact of those values on our world. I find myself voting most often on which debater/argument gives me confidence in a position.

I'm far less concerned with how "safety" is infinitely more important than "justice" - both are important. I am far more interested in which value is most appropriate or important in the resolution, and how the value criterion can guide us to a position on that resolution. we can find an "island" - a solution - where we can have both to the maximum potential.

Public Forum ... is a fact debate. We are seeking to understand the costs and benefits of a given action in a scenario. Cards and evidence help us be confident in whether supporting the resolution will have a better/worse outcome than the status quo. I look to both sides to inform me of what factors, details, and considerations should be most important when I vote.

It is also a team debate. While I do not vote on teamwork or speaker points/performance in the round, I do actively resist voting for low-point wins.

Congress... Simulates our policy-making process. You are not there to perform a speech but to convince an audience of your peers to vote in favor or withhold support for a given bill or resolution. You are there to use Parliamentary procedure to ensure the social contract is upheld for your constituents.

Speakers should contribute to debate and progress the flow of debate on a bill - not just read a prepared speech. Signpost your speech by references previous speakers, points or concerns, or clear indicators you are introducing a new contention. Call for specific actions from your colleagues, give them voters, use your tone and character to create appropriate urgency for what is being considered. DIRECT QUESTIONING: Ido take not of competitors who stand out (or flounder) during direct questioning. Questions are not always antagonistic or combative but can also collaborate with the speaker.

Presiding Officers: You are to lead the chamber. I will support your decisions while protecting the integrity of the chamber. In Open, I will stop an out-of-order motion from the Chair, but I will wait for you to correct out-of-order behavior before interrupting. That being said, if you feel I made a mistake, you can use that as an opportunity to model Robert's Rules and challenge me! I want to give your as many opportunities to showcase your skill to the judges (and draw their attention to it).

Policy... is an evaluation of a comprehensive policy that fulfills the spirit of the resolution. In Policy debate, the debaters can use the stock issues to signpost, label, or otherwise present their plan to fulfill the resolution. The assumed goal is solvency of the proposed resolution or a counterplan. Cards become the backbone of these constructive arguments and should guide me in how to weigh the significance of harms and inherency of factors, advantages, and disadvantages of each case plan.

I respect that this debate format encourages spreading to meet these expectations, but I have yet to be convinced that a debater should be evaluated by their speed to read words over the clarity, tone, and rhetorical technique in delivering those words. I also have yet to see a real-world application of the skill in the debates and public forums of our world - specifically those that craft and present policy. I admit I often find myself led more by the narrative of an argument more than the number of arguments. In other words, the volume of evidence and warrant given should be measured and framed appropriately to what effectively links the claim with the impact.

---

Thank you for your time and dedication in this activity! I encourage you to not lose sight of the purpose and application of the skills you're practicing here: research, listening, comprehension, critical thinking, speaking, rhetoric, analysis, etc. You are coming of age in a world where nearly every person is one swipe/click away from being/finding an audience. Your ability to speak to be understood and listen to understand (Sean Covey) will determine whether you become a mover or the unconsciously moved.

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

Public Forum

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

Lincoln Douglas

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

Policy

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

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your speeches if you can't make logical arguments. When a speech is delivered too quickly, evidence can be lost and therefore can leave the argument unsupported. If I feel that your speed defies normal communication rate, I will set my pen down. This means that your arguments are not being flowed and do not exist.

I enjoy clash, but it needs to be respectful. When looking at the constructive speech a few well developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. I will forever identify as a “communication judge”. After all, if you are not developing positive real-life skills, what is the point?

I will flow to keep track of the debate, but I am not a flow judge.

Lincoln Douglas debates: The value and criterion are the foundation of the debate. Policy does not belong in LD.

Policy: Stock issues are key.

Congress: Well written speeches are wonderful, but they should be delivered extemporaneously and be authentic to the conversation being had. Also, any speeches given, should add depth to the argument; please avoid repeating main points that have already been presented.

Public Forum: Polite and well informed debate is a must, respect your opponents time. This form of debate was created to be a lay person debate, and I will view it as such.

Be decent humans.

My paradigm primarily lies in strong links. Economic arguments are good too. My primary education is in economics, so if debaters make those kinds of arguments, then I will be able to provide the most detailed feedback.

I tend to not favor arguments that provide weak links (such as nuclear war contentions) or ones that require theory that is too detached from what a debater can reasonably absorb and refute over the course of a single round. Though the introduction of new theories can be important and very educational, I think that debate rounds are unfortunately too short to reasonably be able to introduce what might have taken the speaker several hours to reading to understand originally. So introduce new ideas, but please be mindful of your limited ability to express them, and please try to prevent them from becoming more of a cudgel than an educational tool.

Hello! First, a little on me. I did four years' worth of LD debate in high school I currently do collegiate debate. I also currently assistant coach. This being said, I tend to value traditional debate over progressive. However, this is your round, not mine, and I will flow whatever you choose to run. I'm fine with speed as long as it's accessible to everyone in the round- this includes the other judges and especially the other competitors, and it is used as a tool rather than a weapon. I'm generally tech over truth.

As for actual voting issues rather than my preferences about the round:

First and foremost, the debate is a space of inclusivity and kindness. I can and will vote on professionality. Discriminatory comments will not ever be accepted.

Secondly, I am a flow judge. Make sure you have time management so that you have plenty of time to respond to everything on the flow, including the framework. I am not a huge fan of kicking arguments and if I were you, I would stay away from this when you can. However, if you are going to kick an argument, be sure to explain to me why you are doing it. Otherwise, it's dropped on my ballot.

Finally, impact calculus is incredibly important. Tell me why your point matters more than your opponents.

Please feel free to ask me any questions as you have them.

Be decent humans.

Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution; what are the real world implications of your arguments?

I am not impressed by the speed of your constructive speeches if you can't make logical arguments.

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap in LD or PF. Also, I know that the timer will start on your first word; I do not need you to tell me that.

Be decent humans.

Hello,

My name is Colt Gosse. I am new to judging debate. That being said, I have seen debates and I really enjoy them. I typically look for arguments/debates that follow sound judgment, reasoning, and evidence. I do not have an argument style that I prefer necessarily other than that arguments be clear and straightforward. Of course, I do also expect that the debaters treat each other with mutual-respect.

I love debate. Do it well :)

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision in debate holistically, minimize debate jargon (particularly in PF), swayed by competent philosophical arguments in LD, support is important but does not outweigh sound logical arguments and reasonable impacts/harms.

My Background

I have been judging for two years now, primarily Congress. I strive to be impartial and judge by reasonable standards of argumentation and presentation. Genuine civility and respect for others impresses me. I do my best to judge on the merits of argument and presentation, putting aside my personal opinions on the subject at hand. I take notes for myself and write as many ballot comments as I can in the allotted time, aiming for respectful honesty and recognition of merit.

Content

I expect the premise to be clear immediately, followed by logical, well-developed arguments with convincing evidence to support them. If an argument requires technical language, it should be explained.

Delivery

Eye contact, please! Connecting with the audience is an important part of convincing, both of your sound arguments and the integrity and believability of your character. I am greatly biased toward understandable speed of speech. If I can't understand a speaker because of speed, I cannot give that person a positive critique. There is a way of beginning - becoming suddenly much more forceful and raising the voice - that I find distracting.

I’m a communications judge. Please speak clearly enough that I can understand your ideas. I can handle a faster pace but make sure you're not speaking quickly so you can repeat yourself. Give me voters at the end. I ask that you maintain professionalism and that you're respectful to your opponent's and judges.

Policy: Don't argue the Neg begins at a disadvantage or there is an uneven playing field. I will take that to mean you believe you can't beat any of the Aff arguments.

Prefer conversational pace, weigh decision by competent and logical arguments.

Yo yo yo! My name is Andoni and it looks like I'll be your judge for this round. Hopefully it will result in the best round of debate ever had with some laughs, break dancing, and maybe even a freestyle rap session in the end.

A lil info about me: I did Lincoln Douglas for all of High School as well as some duo interpretation. In my senior year this culminated in me getting 4th at state for LD and 3rd at State for duo. I don't say this to violently flex on you and cement an alpha status (sometimes sigma) before beginning this round, but instead to demonstrate that you can get a bit technical, use some jargon or whatever else you want, and I'll probably be able to keep up for the most part. Also, I am not a very serious judge although I can recognize that this paradigm makes me appear as if I run with a rigid and strict iron fist. Feel free to have some fun in this round. I want to be entertained. Maybe an extra speaker point if you seamlessly incorporate fortnite into an argument somehow.

Criteria:

-Like MF Doom on a complex yet ingenious beat, I will be flowing. If your opponent drops an argument, or simply doesn't address a certain argument with much depth, attack this. If I didn't get distracted thinking about how much I love Ice Spice and instead was properly flowing like I'm supposed to, I should have this marked down on my flow. If you point this out and tell me why this is so imperative within the scope of the round, this will provide me some really great reasons to vote for you. MAKE SURE YOU POINT THIS OUT THOUGH. If your opponent drops an argument or whatever and you don't point this out I will simply not vote on it.

-I ain't no Mom judge but I also recognize the importance of speaking. Although I won my family dinner scrabble tournament last week, this sheer amount of intelligence is still not enough to keep up with disjointed and hard to follow argumentation. Although I will always look at arguments first and foremost, just know I am flawed. The more you're able to hold my hand throughout the round, explain your points clearly, and explain why it is so important that I vote on these points, the more likely I am to remember and follow the arguments you made. This will all result in a higher likelihood of you receiving the victory royale.

-Framework is important. Although I was never a huge framework debater, I can still recognize that if one person clearly wins the framework debate, it as a result will impact how the round is framed (shocking). This is important because even if I agree with one individuals points more than the others, if these points don't fit within the framework that prevailed in the round, I cannot vote on them. Whatever you do, just make sure that your arguments tie into the framework that may be winning the round.

Ways to For Sure Lose This round:

-Dropping lots of slurs and hate speech. Probably will make me not want to vote for you.

-Physically attacking me or your opponent.

-Dissing Ice Spice.

-Not showing up for the round (This will probably make it harder for me to vote for you).

-Making fun of me (I will cry for hours)

Other things:

-Theory: If you run theory I will do my gosh darndest to keep up. Just know I only ever competed in a traditional circuit so admittedly my knowledge of theory is incredibly limited. I will be the first person to recognize that I for sure have a bias towards traditional debate and although I will obviously do my best to combat that, I just want to acknowledge that just so everyone is on the same page.

-Spreading: Imma be so real, I just straight up don't like spreading. If I wanted to listen to Eminem I would go into my car, blast rap god, and drink a 12 pack of monster. That being said, I will do my best to keep up. Just know I may not if the spreading is quick enough.

Debate:

• Quality of argument over quantity
• Evidence to back up argumentation.
• Articulate your point - you can go as fast as you want as long as I can understand you.
• Be respectful: In crossfire, don't get muddled in stupid arguments, use them intelligently to undue the other side. Please do not be rude or condescending. There is no room for that.
• Use your constructives to set me up for your arguments - build your case, tell me the story
• Use your rebuttals to give me reason to disagree with your opponent. Don't just attack, you need to defend.
• Use your summaries to clean up anything vague or muddled.
• Use your final focus to make me vote for you.
• Convince me

Congress:

• You have a limited amount of time so try and get as many speeches in as you can.
• However, just because you speak the most, doesn’t mean you will get 1st. Your speeches need to be spoken with clarity, poise, and facts.
• Be ready to back up your argument during questioning. While you are getting questioned, answer respectfully.
• While you are questioning another speaker, be respectful. I will bump you down in rank for being disrespectful
• Just because you are the P.O. does not get you ranked 1st. As a P.O. you need to be respectful of your fellow representatives. If you make faces during someone’s speech or questioning, your rank will go down. If you play favorites, your rank will go down. If you are rude, your rank will go down.
• I judge you based off of your speeches, your answers, and what you ask your fellow representatives.
• if you are down right rude, you will get a very low score. You can be competitive and still do it respectfully.

Speeches:

• Your speech needs to hold my attention as well as your audience.
• You need to engage with your audience and make them feel as though this is the only speech they ever want to listen to
• You need to speak clearly and articulate. If I can’t understand you, I am unable to evaluate you
• Your speech should have a wow factor. Make your speech so interesting that I go back to the judge’s lounge and tell everyone about how great it was.

I will vote for whoever makes the most sense. I can't flow an argument I don't understand.

I like it when debaters use their own words to explain evidence and contentions, rather than just saying buzz words. If you can't explain your contention in your own words, then it makes me think you don't understand what you're saying yourself.

Most importantly, have fun and don't be mean to your opponents! It is possible to be assertive and confident without being condescending or arrogant!

Speech and debate are not merely extracurricular activities; they are powerful tools for honing communication skills, critical thinking abilities, and fostering intellectual growth. This paradigm delves into the multifaceted world of speech and debate, highlighting their significance in personal and academic development.

1. Effective Communication: Speech and debate provide platforms for mastering the art of effective communication. Participants learn to articulate their thoughts clearly, persuasively, and concisely, essential skills for success in both personal and professional realms.
2. Critical Thinking: Engaging in speech and debate fosters critical thinking skills by challenging participants to analyze complex issues from multiple perspectives. Through research, analysis, and argumentation, individuals learn to construct logical and compelling arguments.
3. Confidence Building: Public speaking can be daunting, but speech and debate offer a supportive environment for individuals to overcome their fears and build confidence. The ability to confidently express ideas in front of an audience is invaluable in all aspects of life.
4. Civic Engagement: Speech and debate empower individuals to become active participants in civic discourse. By discussing pressing societal issues, participants develop a deeper understanding of the world around them and are motivated to effect positive change.
5. Intellectual Growth: Engaging in speech and debate cultivates intellectual curiosity and a lifelong love of learning. Participants are exposed to a wide range of topics and viewpoints, challenging them to expand their knowledge and broaden their perspectives.

Hello!

My paradigm is rather simple. I tend to be an impacts judge and go for whichever side can impact calc. their arguments out. Students should debate the way they want to, just please make sure I can hear you. I can follow speed, just make sure that you enunciate clearly so that I can still follow. If you have any additional, specific, questions please feel free to ask me about them before the round. For the purpose of setting up email chains, my email is hubbchri@gmail.com

Debate is foremost a persuasive activity where being strategic means developing clear, clever, and organized solutions to resolve the issues put forward by the topic and the round. In front of me, you should read whatever argument you feel that you are most persuasive on, interested in, and proud of. The more that argument clashes with your opponent, the better the debate.

Frame the debate in the final rebuttals. Do your research. Look, sound and act like you're winning till somebody tells you different.

I am a blank slate and objective for every debate. I will base my decisions on which team was the most persuasive in their arguments, whatever those arguments may be. Were your arguments relevant and did they further your contentions? Did you use cross effectively (were you able to poke holes in the persuasiveness of your opponents arguments)? Were your arguments and attacks cohesive throughout the debate, or did you bounce all over the place? Did I get a sense that you really understood the topic? Did you use evidence? Did you say "like" or "um" a million times? All of those things factor into my decisions.

I LOVE hearing the evidence you prepared. I want to hear how your evidence backs up the facts you are trying to assert. Without evidence, I may assume you are making stuff up which could lose you points.

Time management and knowing how to effectively argue each round is important. For instance, it is not proper to bring up new evidence and arguments during Final Focus. Additionally, if you struggle with time management, I will probably notice. Make sure that you have a good grasp on where you are at in the debate.

LOOK UP! If you have researched your topic well, there is no reason that you should be buried in your phone, ipad, or computer. You should use those tools as guidelines and to keep you on track, but I want to feel that you have a good understanding of what you are arguing. That enhances your persuasiveness to me.

Do's:

- Warrant every claim you make

- Signpost

- Weigh (start in rebuttal if possible)

- Line-by-Line in summary and final focus

- Make analytical responses coupled with evidence, rather than just reading cards

Don'ts:

- Poorly paraphrase evidence

- Speed as a tool of exclusion

- Use statistics or evidence that you can't explain

I am a mixture of communication and flow. I need to see you hold up your own case, but I do care how you express yourself and treat your opponent. Civility is crucial. If you are rude, patronizing, or needlessly aggressive, you will lose. I need to understand what you say, so please speak slowly enough for me to understand.

I'm a former debater, so I have a really big appreciation for good framework that flows throughout the entire debate. Final focus is really important to me as this is when you are supposed to tell me why you won the round. Evidence is good but a single card with no warrant is not a refutation in my opinion. Explain WHY that evidence is relevant and why it adds to the debate. I will try as best I can to go off my flow when making a decision but if you believe there was a contention or refutation left unaddressed throughout the debate, I will not flow it through unless you bring it up in the final focus. If the point is important then it makes sense that it should come up in the final speech. Lastly, respect is a must in a debate round. This activity takes a ton of courage and it's super demoralizing to have rude opponents. It makes everything less fun to be rude so please be nice!! :)

I am a communications judge and will base my decision on who can be more persuasive in their arguements and communicate effectivly. I know that there is a lot of information that you need to fit in a short amount of time, but please do not talk so fast that I can not follow your case. It is more important to me that you present information that has substance verses spouting out lots of facts just to fill your time. PLEASE do not spread! Imagine that you are talking to someone that knows nothing about your arguement and you are trying to explain why I should agree with your side. I need to be able to hear and understand your key points each time you speak and please stick to the topic. Keep it civil before, during, and even after your debate. A few things that I am not a fan of hearing about- nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, and mass extinction. Good luck!

Good communication, with arguments based on evidence, logic, and persuasion. Reasonable arguments and impacts. Extreme harms such as mass extinction, nuclear annihilation, cannibalism, zombies, etc. require extreme real-world evidence. Not recommended.

Logical fallacies make for weak debate. I watch for logical fallacies, but also expect the opposing team to point out if their opponent is relying on a logical fallacy as part of their case.

I expect the following during debate rounds:

1. Debaters should provide their own timekeeping. Judges should be observers and not controlling the round.
2. Tag-teaming protects a weak debater by hiding in the shadow of a strong debater and consequently slows their growth. I do not allow tag-teaming in rounds.
3. Debate should be focus on discussion of the topic. No ad hominem attacks.

It's important that participants speak loud enough to be heard and that they don't speak so quickly that I can't understand what they're saying.

It's also important that participants are professional and courteous in regard to the process and to others.

Lastly, I look for roadmaps, framework, and well supported contentions/arguments. Poorly structured or supported contentions and arguments are not as strong or as easy to follow.

I expect everyone to debate honorably and with respect to your opponent. Debate the topic- not the person.

LD/PF/Extemp Debate:

What I love to see is a case that goes beyond the obvious; straight-to-the-point questions; a well-organized rebuttal that can attack every aspect of your opponent's case; and voters that clearly point out why and how you won. If I notice issues in your opponent's argumentation that you do not bring up during voters, I will view that as a point against you.

Congress:

If you stand up to speak, you should have new points and evidence to back up what you are saying. Speeches based on feelings or repeating what has already been said are not effective.

Policy:

I’m 100% a lay judge for policy. My team does not do this event, and I do not teach this event. If you want to talk super fast, make sure you’re enunciating clearly enough so I know what you’re saying.

As an English and drama teacher, I am well versed in reading books and people. I have a lot of experience and knowledge in events that involve acting in one way or other.

As a judge for speech and debate, I do not pretend to be extremely well versed in the unique world of argumentation. What this means for you is that your are appealing to the "common man" for the most part. I will keep my ears open for reasonable arguments, but I simply won't be able to keep up if you speak as quickly as possible.

Hi! I did debate for 4 years, mainly Public Forum, but am familiar with all other forms of debate. I consider myself a "flow" judge, I write down every argument made and every rebuttal. I think framework and values are important, if they are mentioned, they do play an important role in decision making and understanding of the round/arguments.

Arguments made in crossfire/cross-examination are not added to the flow, and I suggest adding them to the speeches. I love interesting arguments and will follow anyone blindly, as long as it stays on the flow.

Any additional questions, please ask!

I participated in speech and debate throughout high school but I was not an avid debater... I am comfortable judging PF and Congress--typically I operate as a Flow judge or a Comms judges, but if you can do a mix of the two if applicable, that'd be great. Ultimately, your goal is to give me the best voters you've ever given. I LOVE some good clash but I want the clash to have substance, meaning I expect proper rebuttals to counterargs. Speaker points will be awarded based on the clarity of your content, the efficacy of how you deliver your argument, and how you think you'd win the debate based on your flow.

General Housekeeping: Please time yourself even though I will also be timing you. For PF, I think off-time roadmaps are a helpful way to structure yourself and also prepare me for your speech, so do with that what you will. I'd also appreciate a pre-flow so I can, again, anticipate your flow. For Congress, there isn't anything much, just make sure you make good links and address the negation's points.

Etiquette Expectations: I feel as though this is to be executed regardless, but I like outlining my expectations so they're clear. I do not tolerate any discriminatory or abusive remarks. Please think wisely before speaking. I also expect to hear none of your personal opinions about the round while I'm in earshot--I feel that defeats the purpose of having an unbiased judge. Again, please conduct yourself accordingly. I do not want to witness or hear behaviors that I'd be compelled to tell your coach about. Your speaker points will be affected to a degree if I'm present for any of the above and it will be noted in your ballot for you and your coach to see.

Overall, I expect you to make the debate community better than how you entered it. You are in high school, and this is for fun. Try and make this a good time for yourself, your opponents, and your judges!

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

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

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

Neg:

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

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

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

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

I've been judging for more than 15 years now. I've been a coach for more than 7 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

Congress: I very much hate redundant, rehashed, speeches. You don't all need to speak on the same bill. It hurts you when you do that because the later speeches don't have new points and don't progress the debate. Direct, by name, refutation is absolutely going to help you. Using evidence AND citing your evidence is absolutely going to benefit you. You don't need to wave your arm like you're trying to conduct an orchestra. Movement can either add or detract from your speech. Move with a purpose and make sure that it adds to your speech otherwise it's a waste. If you use an intro, which is recommended, make sure you tie it into your conclusion because it ties everything into a nice little bow. I, also, use the NSDA guidelines for scoring speeches and PO time.

P.O. Be ruthlessly efficient. Cut out all of the unnecessary wording. You don't need to thank them for a speech. If we just had a speech in affirmation we don't need to tell everyone that. You can just say "negation" and tap and expect people to rise to be recognized. That saves a lot of time. Same thing for questioning. Cut out all the unnecessary words. It slows the round down and makes it so you don't get the maximum number of speeches. Shut down dilatory motions. Only recognize one motion at a time. Keep the chamber in order. Don't recognize motions that aren't a part of Parli Pro.

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

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

I hate critiks, even in policy rounds.

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

Will flow

Links and warrants are essential, else your good evidence and arguments are null

I love impacts, but that doesn't mean I will blindly believe whatever you say

I have judged policy, Lincoln Douglas, and Public Forum for 5 years into the national level, supporting my son in debating not only in Idaho, but Nevada, Utah, Washington and California. Spreading is allowed; speaks will reflect judge’s comprehension. I am open to any kind of approach—topicality, Ks, etc.; however, I won’t do the debate work for you. Tell me what I am judging on and why your arguments outweigh/have greater impacts than your opponent, with links and warrants to your evidence to give the justification why I should prioritize your impacts over your opponents.

Please give roadmaps; just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time."

I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence) judge. In general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Any position that tries to argue that sexism, racism, heteronormality, or any other form of bigotry is ethically defensible or even permissible will be dropped. Arguments that are not quite this vile, but have an easy slide to becoming them include: the impact to oppression must be warranted, you must prove why oppression is bad, or arguments placing the blame for oppression on its survivors. It’s likely that you will make that slide unintentionally, and so I recommend avoiding these types of arguments just as strongly.

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

I have a lot of experience in mainly speeches.

I currently teach Speech & Debate. I have done this for the past year along with coaching speech/debate.

Debates that I can not judge are policy and congress. I am very comfortable in judging PF.

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

Looking for thoughtfulness in the presentation; ability to interpret opponent's arguments and address them, as well as showing ability to adapt for follow up speeches

First and foremost, I am not a former debater and have been introduced to speech and debate through my daughter. I've been judging for two full years now and make most tournaments so I do have a fair amount of experience judging debate. Although this is a debate, good speaking characteristics are definitely a portion of your score. Off time road maps to start a speech are always helpful. I like to see good eye contact while speaking, signposting, clear and concise communication along with other good speaking habits help the audience stay engaged. Please don't go too fast as it can cloud up what your audience is hearing. Quality over quantity is usually always best.

I will somewhat flow each round I judge to help me ensure both teams are paying attention to what the other is stating. I like to hear arguments that are well constructed and well presented with supporting evidence that is clear and easy to follow. The same also applies when you are refuting an attack against your case.

As a judge that hasn't done debate before, strong voters to close out the debate do help in making my decision. They are the last thing I hear from you as a judge, so make them count.

Lastly, RESPECT for your opponents is mandatory in rounds I am judging. I expect to hear a good educated argument during a debate, not a shouting match.

For Congress:

Please remember this is Congressional debate, not congressional speech. Although the speeches are what we are judging, they need to address points brought up during previous speeches or questioning. The only speeches that shouldn't address arguments/points brought up by other legislators are the authorship/sponsorship speeches given to start debate on a piece of legislation.

During questioning, please ensure your questions are to the topic at hand. I do reward participants for involvement in the questioning period after each speech as long as the question is relevant to the legislation being discussed.

When reading a prepared speech, make sure to still make good eye contact and use other good speaking practices while giving your speech. I write a lot of comments stating "please speak to me, not just read to me"

I'm a former policy debater. That said, for policy, stock issues. Not a big fan of topicality arguments, but raise them before the rebuttal. Spreading should stay on the farm.

LD--its a values debate. Tie your contentions to your value. Tell me why your value outweighs your opponent's.

PF--I want impacts. This debate is short. Impacts are critical.

Overall--I pay attention to evidence, so it helps if you CLEARLY give me the citation up front. I guess I'm a comms judge, because if I cannot understand, or you speak too fast, it isn't counting in your favor.

Be able to summarize, in layman's terms, what your evidence means. It's obvious on a cross ex when you can't.

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

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

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

I have a background in law and policy. My paradigm for judging debate is to award the most logically coherent and well presented arguments. I don't care which side you are on, I will reward you if you make a well reasoned arguments that address the issue at hand. I am looking for you to advance your cause and refute your opponents arguments in a direct, compelling and clear way. Dodging, bringing up irrelevant points, and failing to try to refute your opponents key arguments are things that I will hold against you.

Good luck! I am very proud of you for having the courage to compete and the willingness to work hard to prepare. I look forward to hearing you debate!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please be respectful to each other and do not cut each other off harshly during crossfires.

Less is more meaning if you speak so fast I cannot remember what you said, that will work against you for how much I can remember of your argument(s). I would rather you have less content and speak slower so I can comprehend and remember what you're arguing for vs. have you speak so fast to fit in all that you are trying to say.

It's ok to use your phone to time yourself

Engage the audience...if you read from your computer the whole time, that's not engaging. I'm not interested in if you speak verbatim of what you've written. Know your content, be able to articulate it succinctly and precisely and it will convince me why your argument is the preferred way to go.

Hey y'all,

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

I watch to see audience engagement, is the speaker making eye contact with others in the room or staring at their computer/paper, are they at least doing engagement checks.

When addressing questions I watch to see if the speaker makes any movement toward the questioner to show they are engaging with them.

I am ok with analytical and anecdotal evidence, however that does not replace empirical evidence. I want to know why you are correct, not just that you have an opinion on something.

If you are going to utilize a specific word please make sure you know the pronunciation, often times if someone doesn't take the time to learn how to say a word it could show a lack of understanding of their own information...make sure you know what you're talking about, including the pronunciation.

The last two things I do pay attention to is voice projection and speed while talking. I understand there could be several reasons that a speaker is quiet but it needs to be audible enough to hear in the back of the room without having to put in effort. I also understand there is a lot of information that has a short time to get out, powerful arguments may not necessarily require a lot of words, either way pick a solid pace.

Charlotte Reid has been teaching for 17 years, but coaching debate for only 7 of them. While she has no specific preferences towards style, she is conservative and a traditionalist. She keeps a detailed flow, weighs arguments and their impacts, she doesn't like dropped arguments, she likes medium-high speed, clash, appreciates courtesy, and prioritizes clear and concise communication skills. Thank you for engaging in a fun and moving debate round!

I am a first year parent judge, conversational pace and minimal use of jargon are important.

General/ For all Debate

I am a flow communications judge. That is not to say I will be judging you by how well you speak, but by how effectively you do it. However, my decisions will primarily be derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash, explode, have fireworks, and all the cool things about debate. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guess work that could potentially harm your side of the debate. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overtly rude to your opponents- basically, I do not wish for ad hominems to come into action. Lastly, I competed 4 years in high school and 4 in college. I've been to nationals, won it twice in college, and placed in the top 5 two other years. I can keep up. Debate how you want to debate, but make sure it is accessible. Before running a K ask your opponent if they are okay with prog debate. I do not want speed, k, theory, overviews, etc. to become a way to isolate your opponent.

LD

In voting issues do more than note you win on Value Criterion. VC is a weighing mechanism not something that wins the debate simply because yours is better- frankly I do not care which VC is better if one person upholds both better. Upon coaching LD for a year I have determined I have never been more wrong in my life. VC is super important in LD and most of your time needs to be spent here proving why your VC matters. Do I like it? No, but it is what it is.

Policy

In-n-outs are fine, tag teaming keep to a minimum if one partner does all the work it looks bad on you. I prefer lay over prog in terms of theory and Kritics, but if you can contextualize them and flush them out I can keep up.

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

I'm a judge who prefers moderate speakers, so I can get all the information down. I will vote for the person/team who sells me on their argument, with solid evidence, and a quality debate. Quality over quantity is huge, don't overload the flow with information if it isn't going to be strong evidence.

I am a parent judge and have judged for the past 3 years in every event, which means that I am familiar with the rules and terms.

I prefer students know the material and that they don't just read off of their screens the entire time. I like to hear meaningful questions and prefers students to fill the time that they have been given. Please don't speak too fast to where it is difficult to follow your argument. Be kind and be respectful.

As a debate judge, I value a few things:

-Signposting: Please tell me where you are at in the flow to assist in my ability to accurately judge the round. This will also be extra powerful in points of clash -- show me where your cases are in direct contention with one another and why your side should be preferred.

-Cards/Evidence: I get that evidence matters in a debate round. I honestly don't place a lot of value in a lot of a round being focused on when an article was published or when a study was conducted ... like I get that it matters and can be important to a round, but I much so value your wholistic arguments and ideas in your case over niche disputes on sources.

-Impacts: By making your impacts clear and concise, I am better able to understand the most important/essential elements of your argument.

-Voters: By the end of the round, you should be able to tell me why you won the round.

At the end of the day, I am not a very picky judge! I want to see you do what you do best.

I am a communications judge, but I can follow flow pretty well.

I have judged before but I haven’t done it often.

I love off time roadmaps! It helps with my flow. Please signpost well, if you don’t signpost I can’t guarantee I will flow your argument. Do not speak fast, I prefer effectiveness over efficiency. Please weigh your impacts I should know why your contention matters by the end of the debate. A lack of civility will result in point deduction.
Just make sure the debate is civil and professional.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

The main thing I look for is impacts, I like to know how I am affected and why I should care.

The next thing I look at is the framework, if you give me a framework work use it, and don't drop it.

I don't mind conflict during the round (I think it is fun to watch) but when you leave please be kind and friendly to your opponent.

I am a communications judge. I focus on clarity, evidence and good speaking skills. Stay respectful and professional and have good clash. I did debate/speech all through high-school and am a experienced judge and Asst.Coach.

Background: I have been coaching for nearly 30 years - a combination of coaching at Boise State University for the Talkin' Broncos (15 years) and now 14+ years at the high school level.

Overall Debate Philosophy/Preferences: I believe debate is a game we play with our friends, so please respectfully present your arguments but do so in a way that is positive and reflects well on this activity. I appreciate organization, tell me where your clash is, and impact out your points. Tell me WHY your arguments and points take priority or should be considered above those of your counterparts.

Policy Debate: I am fine with moderate speed. If I can't understand or follow you, I will stop flowing the round. Great debate can be won or loss in cross-examination. Ask pertinent questions, answer directly. I prefer stock issues but am open to most arguments if you can JUSTIFY why it is preferred.

PF/LD Debate: As these debate formats ask you to perform specific duties, it is imperative that you meet that expectation for me to win my ballot. In LD, make sure you link your value and criterion to all your contentions. I must hear impacts - don't leave it to me to do your work. Don't just give me tag lines and evidence and expect me to figure it out. That is your job! In PF, each debater has a very specific role so make sure to fulfill it. Case, Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus are each important and a well-balanced team tends to look better.

Congressional Debate: Be professional, well organized when speaking, ask pertinent questions, and stay engaged throughout the session and you'll move up in chamber rank. Be that representative that takes the other side and challenge your fellow reps. I enjoy clash, respectfully done, and be the consummate debater and colleague.

Summation: I believe that Debate, in any format, is a combination of research, organization, refutation, and being stylistic. For organizations' sake, please road map and sign post, provide a brief summary conclusion that leaves me impressed with your skills as a public speaker, strong researcher, and believing your arguments and impacts.

Be brilliant, be persuasive, be nice. Your fellow debaters, no matter where they are from, are your friends!

I am a former three-year Congressional debater and enjoy learning new things in-round. I believe stale debate, no matter the quality of the speech, is uninteresting and reduces time for valuable debate. I recommend that debaters utilize recency and precedence strategically to introduce new material to the debate instead. I value questions as a form of participation and note significantly effective questions for judging. Motions are not a significant judging criteria to me, although experience in parliamentary procedure and strategic usage of previous question are noteworthy. Presiding Officers, of course, receive scores dependent on their ability to effectively uphold parliamentary procedure. Although politics is a component of Congressional Debate, I do not recommend that debaters rally undue influence to impact the debate in a way that negatively affects other debaters. I believe effective debaters may readily succeed without resorting to unfair or self-serving strategies.

Pertaining to decorum, I do not appreciate hostility. I believe effective debate is civil and demonstrates tact. Additionally, I believe effective arguments are enforced by clearly cited evidence. I recommend introducing new evidence, clashing with previous evidence, or analysis on siding/opposition evidence as effective strategies. Although I enjoy "Gotcha" or soundbite arguments, I do not rank them heavily in comparison to well-constructed empirically-supported arguments. Please address previous arguments and evidence; speeches "addressing/introducing" arguments or evidence that have already been supported or refuted seems somewhat tone-deaf to me and may rank lower, despite strong speaking ability.

Rhetorical questions in support of the speaker waste valuable questioning time. I may consider these questions effective should they introduce a new argument or support a standing argument, otherwise they consume time that may otherwise be utilized by opposition speakers with new or supporting points. I intend to score speakers utilizing full 30 second slots to ask repetitive rhetorical questions lower by 2 ranks.

I am an assistant coach with ten years of experience judging debate.

I will judge on the flow and am open to most kinds of arguments. Make sure you connect the dots (tell me how it connects to your case). I am fine with speed, although sometimes speakers are not as clear as they think they are.

Although I like lots of clash, please clash politely with your opponents. I want to hear you address your opponent’s arguments meaningfully. Tell me why winning dropped arguments wins the debate for you. Give me the impact of those dropped arguments.

For LD, know and understand your arguments. Then explain and link them to your value and criterion for me.

I want you to give me clear, impactful voters. Why did you win?

Have fun!

I'm not extraordinarily experienced in the debate world, as this is my second year judging. That being said, I am knowledgeable about argumentation, evidence, theory, etc. as an English teacher so please be careful and intentional when backing things up with evidence. I've found that I really appreciate clear signposting as you go through your speech. What I don't appreciate is speaking so quickly that I'm unable to take notes. If I don't have time to write down your argument or evidence, it doesn't exist to me when I go to make a decision on the winner.

Background I am the head coach at Century High School in Idaho. I competed in high school for 4 years focusing on policy debate, though I competed in all the other formats. I also have 4 years of collegiate debate experience in IPDA, PF, and BP, with a national title under my belt, and several other national awards.

Ultimately this is your round, so you can run whatever you want. I'm primarily tech over truth.

Debate is a game that should be accessible to everyone. That includes creating a safe place to have an educational debate. Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate results in a loss and lowest speaker points. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out (i.e. if someone used gendered language/incorrect pronouns and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact). This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is at is entirely up to me. As such, make sure you give this a wide berth and don't do anything that even makes me consider this. Out debate your opponents without being a problem in the round and you'll easily get my ballot.

Evidence Sharing: Add me to the email chain: tylerjo@sd25.us or use speechdrop please

Framework FW is essential to me as a judge. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and that's how I'll vote.

TheoryI love theory debate, make sure to extend impacts and abuse. If you want me to vote for you, clearly explain what the abuse in the round is.

Condo I tend to err condo bad at a certain point. I would rather see high-quality argumentation that continues throughout the round than a massive number of terrible arguments that get kicked for the purpose of a time skew. 6 total off-case positions for neg is where I'm pretty happy with conditional arguments. As the number of off-case positions increases from here, the easier it becomes for aff to win a condo bad debate, as I become skeptical of the quality of the round I'm watching. That said, I'll listen to condo good theory when neg reads more than 6, and I can even vote for it too. Just be aware that you will need to thoroughly win the condo argument to avoid me voting on abuse.

Topicality T debate is fine. If neg wants to go 8 minutes of T, I'll listen and have a good time as long as it's done well

Counterplans CP's are fun, I find myself leaning aff on process counterplans, but I'll still vote neg on them. Other than that, have fun with them.

DA This is debate. Who's gonna tell you not to run a da?

K's Absolutely love K debate. The alternative needs to be clear. K Aff's are fine, though they are not in my realm of expertise. Narratives and performance are fine but do note that I come from a traditional circuit where this is less prevalent. So long as you justify it in round, I'm happy to listen and have no problems in picking you up. I haven't gotten to judge as much policy as I would like this year, so I'm not up to date on the lit. Make sure that's explained to me.

Speed Speed is fine, I can keep up with it all. 4 notes on it, however.

1) Debate is a game and it should be accessible to everyone. If there are people you are debating with, or you have panelists who would prefer you to slow down, then I don't think you should exclude them from the round by speaking quickly.

2) Slow down on tags and authors so I can write them down. If you don't do this, I may miss important arguments, which you definitely don't want.

3) Slow down on theory and analytical arguments so I can write them down.

4) Enunciate every word. Speed and spewing are not the same. If I cannot understand you, I am not persuaded to vote for you. It is the burden of debaters to communicate clearly to their audience. As such, you will never hear me say 'clear'. I will simply ignore you without remorse. Obviously, if some external factor is causing this and it isn't your fault, (intercom, loud AC, natural disaster, etc.) I'll let you know.

In the context of a virtual tournament, going fast is fine as long as everyone has access to the files or can hear everything. If internet connection is poor, I will encourage slower debate.

Courtesy Be nice to each other. Debate is a game you play with your friends, so don't be mean. If you are demeaning, rude, or just a jerk in the round to your opponents/partner I will drop you. Any form of harassment or discrimination to your opponents or partner will result in the lowest possible speaker points and a loss in the round. So play nice :)

Also, be nice to novices/inexperienced debaters. We would like them to keep with the activity and continue to grow the debate community. So, if you make them feel bad about the round, I'll make you feel bad about your speaker points.

Tag Teaming I hate this. Please don't do that. Cross should be closed

Speaker Points These are entirely subjective, and I won't give you 30 just because you asked. However, I will give verifiable birthday points and last senior tournament bumps at invitationals ONLY

LD All the same information above is valid for me in LD. Run CPs, K's, and DAs to your heart's content. My threshold for conditionality in LD is much stricter due to structural problems with LD as a format. If you go beyond 3 off-case positions as neg, then aff will have an easy time winning the round on condo bad.

PF Please give me some sort of framework for the round. Everything in your final focus has to have been extended throughout the round. If you give me a voter your partner didn't make analysis on in the summary, then I will not evaluate it. Be strategic about what you go for and communicate. Kritiks are cool in pf. Just do them well, not just to say "I read a K in pf."

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins

I will flow just about everything. I weigh dropped arguments harder than highly contested arguments. For example, if Team A has ground on their Advantage, and Team B doesn't ever answer or refute and put a counterargument on the flow, that Advantage will be of a larger impact than Team B’s disadvantage which both sides were fighting for back and forth.

If both teams cover everything on the flow to the best of their ability, it will come down to who provided the best analytical and evidential arguments. This will also largely come from whichever team had the best speaking ability.

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the Speech and Debate Coach at Shoshone-Bannock Jr. Sr. Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I have my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am the former president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to each other. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

I'm a novice judge, this would be my second time judging debate.

I prefer style over argument.

I prefer a conversation speech rate over a fast rate.

Hello, I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and use signposting. Be persuasive and be respectful, but its ok to clash. And don't forget to have fun.

Public Forum

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk or a bully. I hate it. Your scores will reflect it.

I weigh evidence higher than framework. Quality evidence should be applicable, cited, not twisted or warped to your meaning, and from a good source. Don’t tell me “our card so and so from this date is evidence against such and such”. Read my your cards. Tell me why your source is more reputable than your opponent's source. Tell me why your evidence is important. Don't tell me that you win the case if your opponent cant win your framework. You present the arguments and let me decide who should win or lose and why.

Time yourself. Don’t tell me you want to use 30 seconds of your prep time and make me tell you when that is up.

Speak clearly and at a speed that is good for your voice. Don’t push it. It is in your best interest to make sure I can understand you.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. If your opponent asks a question that kills your case, answer it and hope that I don't catch that it killed your case. Don’t try to sneak or bully your way around it. I WILL notice that and will judge accordingly.

I personally hate brief off time road maps that don’t tell me anything new. They always say, “I am going to build my case, then as time allows I will discredit my opponent's case. Yada, yada, yada” Why waste everyone's time?

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Policy

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk. I hate it. I find strategies centered on shenanigans, bullying and manipulation to be annoying. Your scores will reflect it.

I can usually follow fast speaking, if it is spoken clearly. I usually am not good at flowing spreading, as such, I can’t award wins based on information that is presented that way. It is in your best interest to make sure I can understand you. Often speed is used to try to cover up poor word economy and poor arguments. Do not tell me that your opponents dropped a point if they didn’t drop it. It tells me that you actually did not understand what your opponent was saying, are trying to bully me into believing you, or trying to deceive me. Any of them reflect poorly on you. Make sure they actually did drop it before you accuse them of it.

I appreciate signposting to help me identify that your plan covers all 5 areas that it should. Make sure you cover harms, inherency, plan, solvency, and topicality.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. If your opponent asks a question that kills your case, answer it and hope that I don't catch that it killed your case. Don’t try to sneak or bully your way around it. I WILL notice that and will judge accordingly.

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Lincoln-Douglas

I enjoy a polite clash of ideas. However, I score highest those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. Don't be a jerk. I hate it.

LD is a value debate. Know what your value means. The person that argues their value best wins the debate. It's that simple.

Cross-Examination is a major factor in determining my vote. This is an area where you can demonstrate that you know your case and that you can think on your feet. Ask good questions that have a point, allow your opponent to answer, and then respond completely and thoroughly. Please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. Know your case. I watch for canned speeches and score them harshly. If someone else wrote your speech, at least take the time to learn what it is saying.

Please remember that you are trying to persuade me to vote in your favor.

As a coach, my paradigm may shift slightly based on the form of debate.

Congressional Debate: I'm looking for a few well-constructed arguments. Though I would never ask for evidence in Congress, it earns you points to cite evidence in your speeches. I discourage being a late speaker on a bill unless you have new insights or arguments that weren't addressed previously. Please don't just stand and repeat what many others have said. Keep questions short--the longer they get, the more awkward and confused you sound. Have fun, but joke speeches will drop you to the bottom of my ballot.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: It's all about the value and criterion (note that a criterion is a measuring tool by which we can see you've achieved your value; it is not a second value). All contentions should tie back to the value and criterion. The winner usually has shown that they either achieve both values better, has the only value that is achieved in either world, or has done sufficient harm to their opponent's case. Though I value logic more in LD than other debate formats, evidence will always enhance my evaluation.

Policy Debate: If it's worth saying, it's worth saying clearly. I do not favor quantity over quality. If I don't have time to write it on my flow sheet, it was never said. In order to win, the Affirmative needs to win all five stock issues; The Negative must win one stock issue (to suggest you could win in any other way is like a basketball player claiming they can win by how good they are at acting like they've been fouled). If the Neg presents a counter-plan, they have conceded the harms and inherency. At this point, you may only attack the plan and show that you solve better. Topicality is still an option if it was presented in the 1NR.

Public Forum: Public Forum is intended to persuade the average person off the street. I will flow the debate, but I will also judge heavily on your communication and ability to clearly explain the arguments on both sides. Overwhelming the "average person" is not the same as persuading them. If you would rather debate rules and pack four minutes with page after page of spewed evidence, I recommend switching over to Policy debate--better yet, change your ways.

Generally: Logic is great; Evidence is great; Logic and Evidence together are AWESOME! Be true to the form of debate you are in--there's a reason there are different events. Respect your opponents. Be ready to debate. Sign-posting greatly increases the chance that your comments get on my flow; if it's not on my flow, it was never said.

I am an old school debater, policy for 4 years, and a variety of speeches.
I like evidence, speed is fine. I like it when your main points are highlighted.
Be kind to each other.