NCFL Grand Nationals
2024
—
Chicago,
IL/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Genesis Luke Abad
Ridge High School
None
Dwayne Adkins
Rowan County Sr High School
None
Balaji Aglave
Strawberry Crest High School
None
Lisa Ainsworth
Purvis High School
None
Santhoshini Akula
Ardrey Kell High School
None
Yasmine Alami
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Alexie Alas Castrellon
Lakeville North High School
None
Sidney Alexander
Germantown High School
None
Ilzat Ali
Marriotts Ridge High School
None
Johnelle Allemang
Rufus King
None
Mary Allemang
Brigadoon HS
None
Bonnie Amendola
Our Lady of the Sacred Heart High School
None
Mernine Ameris
The Potomac School
None
elizabeth Anderson
Jefferson City High School
None
Kit Araujo
Lansing HS
None
Michael Ashton
Morris Catholic High School
None
Arunima Bagui
Strawberry Crest High School
Last changed on
Fri May 24, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT
Hi,
I am a parent judge and rely on flow typically. I prefer a slower debate. This is my fourth year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I am mostly a lay judge, Some tips that you might want to take into consideration:
I like a great Cross-Examination
Having good evidence comparison is really good,
Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well
For speech I rely on the content and presentation while completing my rankings
Greg Baker
Cape Elizabeth High School
None
Tali Balas
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Carla Ballard
Bullitt East High School
None
Mary Banks
York High School
None
Ryne Bankston
Oxford HS
None
Katelyn Barr
Cumberland Polytechnic High School
None
Jennifer Barrett
School Without Walls High School
None
Karen Barry
Syosset High School
None
Robert Barry
Syosset High School
None
Harshvardhan Barve
Blue Valley West
None
Kelsey Bass
Lightridge High School
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2024 at 10:36 AM EDT
I coach both speech and debate. During debate events, I will flow your speech, and can keep track as long as your vocal production is clear. Please do not spread, I will struggle to pay attention and you will likely lose me. I like to see how you address previous speaker's points/contentions.
Gayatri Batra
Granite Bay High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:18 AM PDT
Parent Judge, for about 2 years
K's/ Theory
- Not too familiar with either, but if you run them be very clear
No Spreading, If I can't understand you, I cannot judge you
I judge with a blank slate, explain and develop all points
Signpost Please
Be respectful and have fun :)
Brady Beckman
Eastview High School
None
Cheryl Bedenbaugh
St. Thomas More Catholic High School
None
Kenny Bedenbaugh
St. Thomas More Catholic High School
None
Last changed on
Fri February 9, 2024 at 11:34 AM EDT
Public Forum paradigm
I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).
I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.
Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.
Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.
I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.
And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.
Lincoln Douglas paradigm
Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?
I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.
Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.
Congress paradigm
Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?
Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.
Gwyneth Beiter
Danville Area High School
None
Kathi Beiter
Danville Area High School
None
Tristan Beiter
Danville Area High School
None
Staci Bell
Southern Lehigh
None
Alyssa Beltran
Xaverian High School
None
Braley Berry
Huntington High School
None
Simren Bhatia
Eden Prairie High School
None
Michael Bischoff
North Mecklenburg High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:32 AM EDT
I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.
Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.
Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.
Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.
Raga Bolisetty
Ridge High School
None
Shannon Borgmann
Marysville High School
None
Madison Boswell
Cumberland Polytechnic High School
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 10:56 AM EDT
I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.
I look for quality sources, not quantity
Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.
I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.
Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.
Ellen Boyer
Shikellamy High School
None
Kathleen Boyle
Munster High School
None
Rory Brady
Brigadoon HS
None
Rajesh Brahmankar
Strawberry Crest High School
None
Bruce Brandon
Cottonwood High
None
Meg Bratt
Fordham Preparatory School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:03 AM EDT
I started coaching Speech and Debate in 2003, so I've been involved in the activity for around 20 years. In the past few years, I've stepped away to focus on raising my own small kids, but I'm happy to be back to help out where I can.
In LD, I lean towards "traditional" debate. I'll listen to whatever you want to run, but be warned that I like to hear a debate that's actually about the resolution at hand, and that I'll be significantly more impressed by solid arguments than by how fast you think you can speak.
Just because I spend more time at little league games than debate tournaments these days, don't underestimate my judging credentials. I am a grad of Harvard and Columbia, a veteran English teacher, and am more than qualified to flow a round. Plus, I happen to think good debate should be accessible to "lay" judges anyway--the point of the activity is communication, after all. If we're not preparing you to present yourself and your ideas just as persuasively in the "real world" as in the debate round, then we're not doing a great job as a debate community, are we?
Ultimately, I think a good debate is a thing of beauty. I am looking forward to hearing some amazing arguments!
Isiah Briggs
University High School of the Humanities
None
Misty Bright
Louisa County High School
None
Lauren Broman
Wrightstown High School
None
Aria Brotherton
Kickapoo High School
None
Kevin Broughton
Stuart Country Day School of the Sacred Heart
None
Megan Broussard
St. Thomas More Catholic High School
None
Alaina Brower
Mount Markham Sr High School
None
Jaleon Brown
Sumner Academy of Arts and Science
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:36 AM MDT
I have debated since 8th grade, and now I am a college forensicator at Western Kentucky University. In high school, I competed in Policy Debate, Public Form, and Congressional Debate and also Interp events during the Forensics season.
Here is my Policy Debate Paradigm:
K's
- I was always a K debater, so I have a sweet spot for them. Make sure if you read a K you describe it well and explain the world of your alt.
Topicality
- Topicality is not a heavy voter for me. I'm not a fan of using it just for a time-filler. However, when running/answering T, please structure it correctly.
Speed
- Speed is not a big problem for me though I am not a huge fan of spreading. If you spread, make sure you explain your cards well and slow down for taglines and more important points
On-case Arguments
- Aff, these are very important to keep consistant throughout the round. Offense is just as important as defense.
- For the neg finding solvency deficits is a significant voter for me.
Other Off-Case Arguments
- I'm down to hear any disads, CPs, etc. as long as you prove their relevance in the round.
*If any team says anything racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudiced, etc. it will be an automatic loss.*
Jamelle Brown
Sumner Academy of Arts and Science
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 3:57 AM CDT
POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM
Name: Jamelle Brown
Current Affiliation: Sumner Academy of Arts & Science High School - Kansas City, KS
Debate Experience: 20+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college
List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.
1. I appreciate real world impacts.
2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.
3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.
4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.
List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.
1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.
2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.
List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.
1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.
2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!
3. Let me see your personalities in CX.
4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.
5. I am excited about performance teams!
List stylistics items you do not like to watch.
1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.
2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!
In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.
Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.
Katie Brown
Union Catholic
Last changed on
Mon January 29, 2024 at 4:25 PM EDT
Don't spread & have fun! Thanks!
Zach Brown
Apple Valley High School
None
Cheyanne Brunner
Wamego High School
None
Anna Bullock
Chanhassen High School
None
Katie Burke
Randolph High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 9:40 AM EDT
A bit about me -- I am a history, philosophy, and gender studies teacher. Keep this in mind when you are making historical or philosophical arguments. Try to be historically accurate!
I have been coaching since 2017.
Debate should not be a competition of essays or research papers. I will not flow a case that is sent to me. Instead, I only flow what I hear.
I firmly believe that Speech & Debate should be an inclusive, accepting, and kind place. Treating your opponent(s) with kindness and compassion should always and forever be the goal, and we should encourage rather than discourage people from continuing in this activity. Treat others how you wish to be treated, and leave the debate space better than you found it.
World Schools Debate:
I have been coaching Team NJ for the last two years. Make sure you explain, explain, explain. Because we are not using cards here, or using less cards, you need to tell me the logical conclusions you are reaching when you reach them. Tell me the "why" and the "how" behind the resolution or behind your model. Just saying "this will happen" or "this is obvious" may not be so clear to the judge. The "why" and the "how" behind your thinking is often much more important and will develop the round more clearly.
Be global in nature! This is World Schools Debate. While the United States is part of the world, it is not the only example out there - be creative! I would even add - the United Kingdom is part of the world but not the ONLY part of the World worth debating. Try to take a global mindset and worldview when you can, and it will make the round more fun.
Creating models or counter-models are totally fine with me. But, be clear! If things are wishy-washy, it leaves room for interpretation and could be easily attacked by your opponents. I also like details! Just stating "change will happen" or "we support innovation" (for example) is not enough. What kind of change? What kind of innovation? I love a debate that really creates a clear picture of your vision for the judge.
Ask POIs! Make them topical and respectful! Be creative with your hooks! These are some of the most fun parts of World Schools Debate and they will certainly help you with style/strategy.
Public Forum:
Above all, I want you to debate based on your style. Don't try to "read me" and change your case mid-round. The best debaters have been people who have been themselves and done what they do best - within reason.
However, I have judged PF more than anything else, and I am a firm believer that PF is designed for the public. Trying to run theory on me/your opponent to intentionally confuse me/them/us is NOT PF. In addition, this isn't LD. Using LD tactics that are not friendly to the public is not good debate.
As I said before, I am a history teacher. Be accurate. Don't make things up. It's usually pretty obvious.
Calling cards - In terms of evidence/intervening.... I don't like to intervene in a round. I would much rather prefer you to be able to make things clear. However, I may call for cards if I have to at the end of a round. I generally don't want to do this. To me, having to call cards means that the round was messy and not really productive.
Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.
Arguments - Please signpost and be clear with your cases. If I have to keep jumping up and down the flow to "find" the turns or arguments that you're speaking about, it will be difficult for me to keep up with the round, and then difficult for me to pick you up. Weigh your arguments. I don't want to hear the classic "lives v. money" weighing -- be specific! Go deeper with your analysis. Make sure that you use both offense and defense, and interact with your opponent's case. It's always upsetting to sit through an entire round where the cases were argued simultaneously but did not clash.
Crossfire - I really like cross. BUT, make it productive. Arguing for arguments sake, being rude, interrupting, talking over your opponent, not answering questions, or turning CX into another speech will lead to lower speaker points.
The biggest thing... do not be rude. Being rude discourages people from joining this activity.
Lincoln Douglas:
Most things from PF also apply here in LD. I definitely judge PF more than LD, but love the philosophical aspect of a good Lincoln-Douglas round. I definitely prefer traditional debate compared to progressive. Please make sure you understand the philosophy you base your case on - I am a philosophy teacher.
Speed - I do not like spreading. I understand that you may have to speak quickly in order to fit your case within the time limits, but I will not pick you up if I cannot understand or flow all of your arguments. If you are going too quickly, I will stop typing/flowing. With a slower round, I think that it allows for an overall better style of speaking and debating.
Arguments - I am fine with K's in a Lincoln-Douglas round as long as it is topical to the resolution. Running one to be abusive to a younger opponent or purposefully confuse either the opponent/the judge is not good, and you should not do this. If you are running one, be respectful of both my time and the work that your opponent has put in. K's that are not topical are extremely hard to judge and that will be reflected in your speaker points. Besides that, in terms of arguments, I want to see good debate. Make sure you are historically accurate, nonoffensive, etc. I'm a pretty traditional judge, but can be convinced to see some progressive debate. However, again, if I'm missing a crucial point on the flow because you were not clear or you spoke too quickly, you did not do your job as a debater. Weigh arguments, make sure you are actually debating each other (rather than running simultaneously cases that do not clash/interact), etc. Don't just tell me that "X dropped the card" and leave it at that. Tell me how and why they dropped the card, and/or it turns to your case. Above all, be clear in the round.
Hannah Burmahl
Millburn High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:44 AM CDT
Hi! I'm an IE/debate judge residing in Chicago and working in finance, and am also an assistant high school speech coach. In high school my focus was persuasive/OO and poetry interp, and in college I expanded my events to include duo, impromptu, POI. You name it, I did it. I lead my college's team as one of the 3 student lead collegiate teams in the country, so I know the hard work it takes to not only put together pieces/write/prep, but to lead a team simultaneously.
FOR SPEECH:
1. Quality over quantity. In written events, sources are great to get your point across, but too many can disrupt your thesis. Delve into your sources more and give me concrete, flowing explanations. Do not put sources in just to "have them" or meet your source quota.
2. Include trigger warnings. I do not have any personal triggers that will affect me judging your piece, but your peers who are watching might. Be respectful of everyone you might encounter.
3. Interp Events - Give Me SUBSTANCE! The emotional range of topics vary greatly. Emotions are valid and should be part of an interp piece. However, too much emotion where it isn't warranted during the performance shows me you may be trying to cover up for not having enough substantial material.
3. Be Yourself. Coming from a speech background myself, I know trying to "butter up" the judges may seem like a good idea, but it does not work with me. I am here for your performance. Show me what you've worked on and the reward follows.
FOR DEBATE:
I also have experience judging Congress and LD. For the purpose of this week's tournament, in LD I look for the following:
1. Let the opponent ask questions in their entirety during cross x. There could be a bit of information in the question that could be very relevant to how you answer, and if you miss that piece of information, that is on you. Make sure everyone has the right to speak and finish their questions.
2. Focus on your opponent's information. Really show me you are listening to what they are saying and add that into your rebuttal and cross x. I know you've been working really hard on your personal research for this topic, but I look for someone who listens to their opponent and use that information to help their argument and cross x. It shows an attentive, experienced speaker in the round.
3. Start out with substance over theory. Starting with theory is a much bigger hurdle to overcome and you may not have enough time in your speeches to enhance, yet alone, prove them.
4. Balance out your recent and past history examples. Too many recent history examples (especially with the November/December topic), leads me to believe you are just searching for the easiest examples, the first ones that come up when researching. Dig deeper, show me you researched the past, say, 70 years or so!
Jason Burtis
Cuthbertson High School
Last changed on
Sun March 3, 2024 at 3:41 AM EDT
Current Experience:
Co-Advisor for Marvin Ridge HS Speech & Debate Club
Parent of Cuthbertson HS Speech Student
Have been judging as a parent and an advisor for 2 years now (LD, PF & Speech)
Spanish & French Teacher, National Honor Society Advisor
Previous Experience:
Directed HS theatre program & taught a speech course (also HS level)
Managed a business for 15 years
Values:
DEBATE: I value good delivery and awareness of the audience for debate events. No "spreading" please. Make good use of your cross-fires, be respectful. Interesting and innovative contentions can be stimulating, but make sure that you have good citations to ground in reality, not speculation.
SPEECH: For speech, I have no hold-ups for possible "triggers" in material. I will react as an audience member. I value good use of evidence and organized delivery, especially for info, extemp, impromptu, etc. Random movement and pacing is a distractor. Always happy to enjoy a great speech or performance!
I take contemporaneous notes, so they will flow in the order of your speech, from execution comments to suggestions, and analysis of structure. I am happy to give immediate verbal feedback to all competitors to help with any improvements that can be made, if time allows.
Glenda Byfield
Westfield High School
None
Rosie Camous
Bishop Moore Catholic High School
None
McKinley Campbell
Ardrey Kell High School
Hello! My name is Ms. Campbell and I am an English teacher and assistant coach of Speech and Debate at my school. Please do not speak too fast or I will not be able to give you adequate feedback. Also, let me know if you need time cues. I look forward to being here and let me know if you have any questions!
Trace Campbell
Wamego High School
None
Sophia Camulaire
Sacred Heart Academy
None
Shane Cantrell
Kickapoo High School
Last changed on
Thu May 23, 2024 at 7:40 AM CDT
The winner of the round will be the team or individuals that has the most of their argument remaining at the end of the round. I want well constructed, thought out, and supported claims; none of which will be well recieve if based in the realm of "common knowledge".
Policy Making: Legislative Model
– Weigh advantages versus disadvantages
Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model
– Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.
Scott Carneal
Sandy Spring Friends School
None
Angela Carpenter
Dallas School District
None
Debra Carter
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Kelly Carter
Lincoln Academy
None
Tammy Cartwright
Seminole Ridge Community High School
None
Jonathan Catten
Cottonwood High
None
Alexandra Chabanov
Xaverian High School
None
Ann Champagne
Southside High School
None
Yasmi Chibber
Reservoir High School
None
Jana Chisolm
Oak Grove HS
None
Chirag Choudhary
Unionville
Last changed on
Wed April 10, 2024 at 10:13 AM MST
tldr: I'm a speech judge by experience, but I can judge debate (pretty flay imo). Don't be a terrible person, have fun :)
About Me
I'm a sophomore at WashU. Spent four years at Unionville High School as an extemper, but I am familiar with all speech events and have some familiarity with PF and trad LD (sorry prog LD and Policy). I'm an econ and finance student, so my background in econ and such is pretty strong.
Debate
I'm almost universally tech>truth and tabula rasa. If I leave notes in the ballot about arguments (which I likely will), please know that those notes did not influence my decision, they are simply thoughts/suggestions I feel the need to point out. Please don't spread unless you want me to hear like a quarter of your words. Thanks <3. PLEASE if you want me to consider something that you say in cross as a voter, bring it up in a speech!!!!!! ALSO, if you don't weigh your impacts for me, I'll just ignore them, so please weigh the stuff you want me to consider when making my decision.
Speech
Why are you looking at my speech paradigm just talk it isn't that hard. If you talk well and your ideas make sense, you'll do well.
Samantha Choung
Lake Highland Preparatory School
Last changed on
Tue February 6, 2024 at 4:00 PM EDT
Hi! My name is Samantha Choung, and I'm currently a freshman in college. I competed in Public Forum for two years and Original Oratory for three years.
-If for some reason the round starts before you are in the room, please wait until the speaker is finished before entering! I would rather you be late than for you to interrupt someone else's piece and accidentally throw them off.
-Be respectful of the other competitors. If I see you on your phone during someone else's performance, I'll be upset and it could possibly impact your ranking.
-Include content warningsif your content could be potentially triggering/upsetting to anyone in the room!
-To be honest, I'm not the best at time signals because I tend to get so focused on giving feedback/watching your piece that I forget or miss the mark. If I accidentally screw up your time signals, I won't hold it against you.
Speak well and have fun!
Jennifer Christen
Marian
None
Dylan Christensen
Brookfield East
None
Brooke Christiansen
Upper St Clair High School
None
Angelina Cicero
Homestead High School
None
Rachel Clapper
Madison Central HS
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:43 PM CDT
I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.
All Debates
Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.
Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.
Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.
Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to refrain from telling me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round----you should win with your arguments, not weaponizing rules. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it effectively), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.
Weighing: I appreciate the active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself. Weighing only works if there are links to those impacts.
Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they fit within the confines of the debate.
Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you a loss.
Specific Debates
Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.
Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.
Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.
Big Questions and World Schools- I expect these to be respectful debates that resemble a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.
World Schools (specifically)- In World Schools, this should look like World Schools- NOT POLICY. I will not entertain spreading, over-sourcing, or not using good style, strategy, etc. For prepared motions, I also will not entertain abusive debate that is so limited it is impossible to prepare for before the tournament. Do Policy if you like Policy that much.
Christine Clark
Boone County High School
None
Catherine Claybaugh
Pine View School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:42 AM EDT
I am a lay judge. I typically look for classic argument.
Some tips for success:
1) Speak clearly. If I do not understand your argument, I cannot vote positively.
2) Be sure to support your position with facts. I will be looking for facts.
3) Use credible sources.
3) Be attentive and respectful to your colleagues and judges.
4) Remember to keep track your own time.
William Clemens
Chaminade High School
Last changed on
Fri May 24, 2024 at 4:30 AM EDT
I am the head coach of a very active high school program and avid Speech and Debate enthusiast, working as a coach and judge for five years now.
LD/PF:
I understand that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication. Debaters should articulate clearly and with intention all their points without pressure to speed read or cover a multitude of topics so quickly. Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, counter-planning, and the recitation of interminable quote cards and briefs. I favor addressing the facts and rebuttals given in the round, with minimal pulling from terms not accessible to reasonable intelligence. I am not supportive of progressive debate style inasmuch as it limits the clarity of the debate for the sake of endless information with not anchor or goal in providing one's opponent with a considerate roadmap for the debate.
Debate is a respectful and hopeful exchange of ideas delivered at a reasonable pace with clarity of thought. I do not tolerate pointed or hostile, rude, or supercilious attitude from any of the debaters at any time.
Argue well, speak clearly, and disagree civilly.
World Schools:
I will always value which side presents the more accessible and strategic impact, scope, and globular consequences relevant to the resolution. I will always judge what I receive from the teams, nothing else.
Brian Cobb
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:35 AM EDT
Platform events will be judged based on--in the order of priority--the originality of the piece; the quality of the delivery, including syntax, diction, and nonverbal communication skills; the content covered in the speech, such as its relevance to current events/personal life; and the significance, deliberate use, and credibility of citations (when applicable). You are more likely to be ranked higher by me if you give a more original speech with poorer delivery than a better-delivered but less original speech.
For interpretation events, you will be ranked higher essentially based on two criteria, again in order of priority: the separation of characters, the flow of the piece, and the ease with which I could tell what is going on; and the significance of the piece, be it personal, comedic, or dramatic. Whichever avenue you choose, do it well (when it comes to dramatic vs. comedic), and I will NOT compare the actual tones of the pieces, only the quality with which you deliver your chosen tone.
PF and other debate events will be judged principally on the complexity of argument and robustness of sourcing, with a secondary emphasis on decorum and quality of delivery. Cross-examination will be factored into my decisions somewhat heavily since you need to be able to defend your argument just as well as you constructed it.
Amy Cody
Webster Schroeder
None
John Cohen
Berkeley Carroll School
None
Camille Coleman
Madison Central HS
None
Anthony Collins
Peabody Magnet High School
None
Veronica Colmenarez
St. Thomas More Catholic High School
None
Eileen Connelly
Webster Schroeder
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:26 AM EDT
First year PF judge and PF coach, but I was an experienced Parliamentary debater in college. The burden is on the Aff to prove that the status quo is untenable and their change will produce a marginally better outcome, the burden on the Neg is to defend the existing status quo and to prove that the proposed changes will produce a marginally worse outcome than the present. Contention speeches are important to set the tone of the debate, but the real winners are able to flow out a round and produce effective rebuttals on the fly along with clear crisp summaries and focus speeches.
I am much more impressed by debaters thinking on their feet than stat dumping or giving canned rebuttals and summaries, due to my background in the more free flowing parliamentary debating style of the APDA collegiate circuit. Try to avoid rehash as much as possible or introducing new contentions in later rounds. I reward civility and good-natured debating over overly aggressive crosses. I find asking for cards and sources to be a somewhat annoying feature of PF, so do so only if needed to clarify an opponents point, and I like both teams to self time.
Jamie Corcoran
Delbarton School
None
Mandy Corke
Petal High School
None
Timothy Coughlin
William Tennent High School
Last changed on
Mon June 17, 2024 at 7:00 AM EDT
If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.
-----------------Big Questions-----------------
This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom (no true at nationals). You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.
-----------------Speech-----------------
Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).
Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.
-----------------Debate-----------------
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1HZn_zZzLFQKlYcT8zT0NfT3D4d9kjjG994Mq53-sgxxOJaxXli84WGP13MNpa7enhcdT4S2e8nZxZ72EWuv5ZMVx7d1SBGx81SbrW1bM4pnXxCJclRxsPL8R9GoMISr0VFo4XakdKuqXLI1ZpZAVxB8xDlqnLQL_onKiwSPajYhxBPQVzproAbljELkOgux0sGpApkHzChqZm0Kl1rD8Dp8vpP9wxbuuVkAwxfmxnwhwXAmNBu-6CHerZtoLjLEqcK8ctUhQAnZfO1yjnypOkGI_GMxxB4riivPzfEz2-psz2eG66B5jtuul-QHUyEuq85H8iYrbqPKs234XN4EaP4vOiFfNFc3KGR_y4UH-t7XEwxiH0bCQJ_P6KYtpeykONzXkoHo-fQF7mxT9Srp_TODwRClm7RjV7ybnriXfYo_lGvSQwLxc-gTySjQzM0jS6KyaWEvkgdU4niF2jhOXE7gAVllrr0vqp6Ai67lJ2uOXSfQ03fuNlMh9nCkCsh7ir_27SYoVcodDw0zuyQ7pWJLi71cuuDFo7xHJF9yMpZoXN47tNa4N43PjZpkPf5wXAh9c4uPfcJaKzRqSVULZjvcLAc7hFcPMrcvXhMGbqjx5NToBO_XPZ_ATc8wxqzkSWslBYuFVjgqbQfl_G8UyxQtEY_D1UqgH5gX53WyOfH156B_dVTVFAg4VFu2Fzel9sR2NilrFqsqazB60RRitGop=w540-h273-no?authuser=0)
For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.
There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.
From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."
Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.
Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.
Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.
I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.
Extemp Debate:
Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!
Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.
----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----
I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.
NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!
Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!
Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.
Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.
NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!
Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.
Ask me questions before the round begins.
cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!
-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----
Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.
Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.
Cheyenne Courville
Cecilia High School
None
Robert Coven
Cary Academy
Last changed on
Sat May 25, 2024 at 5:10 AM EDT
To Whom It May Concern--
I am a former debater (from the “Golden Age” of debate) who delved into all styles of Speech and Debate, including but not limited to:
Policy
Congress
Extemp
Oratory
In evaluating rounds, I prefer arguments that are coherent and well-articulated. I will NOT entertain spreading, will not join your email chain, nor will I vote on arguments that are irrelevant and/or not explained.
Namely, I will not credit straw-manned or caricatured arguments. Don’t read arguments that you don’t understand or can’t explain in layman’s terms. If you can thoroughly explain the theories of Kant, Lacan, etc. well and their implications IN A 6 MINUTE SPEECH WITHOUT SPREADING, more power to you. However, be warned that my threshold for explanation is very high, regardless of how complicated the argument is. I’m willing to bet that if you can explain these philosophies in 6 minutes, you probably just don’t understand it. Keep in mind that most actual philosophers would spin in their graves over the incoherence present in most of these “phil” debates.
I will not evaluate ahistorical claims, even if they are “dropped” by your opponent.
As for argument preferences, anything goes. Plans, moral skepticism, theory, kritiks, or whatever newfangled arguments kids these days like to read. I will vote on anything as long as it has a warrant, a clear explanation, and weighing. You don’t have to be topical, but like any argument, I will vote on topicality if the issue is won.
Don’t leave it to me to weigh your arguments.
Speaker points: I will dock you for ad hominems, poor explanations, spreading, and more!
I will reward word economy, eloquence, wit, and argument innovation.
I do not disclose during the round.
Above all, treat your opponents and judges with respect.
Good luck :)
David Craig
Needham High School
None
Chelsey Crawford
Benjamin Franklin
None
Dana Crawford
Petal High School
None
Shannon Cron
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Sarah Culpepper
Newton South High School
Last changed on
Sun May 26, 2024 at 7:50 AM EDT
PF:
My background as a debater is in parli, and that tells you a lot about my philosophy: evidence matters, but logic/reasoning/narrative is what I'll remember.
WEIGH. Weigh and meta-weigh. If you only take one thing away from my paradigm, let if be this!
Collapse your arguments in summary/FF. Give me voters that bring out major themes. I love FFs snd summaries that begin with, "Here are the three most important reasons you should return an aff ballot," instead of "I'll do their case and then our case."
I don't love jargon-heavy arguments in PF. I do sincerely believe that PF rounds should be intelligible to an educated lay judge. I *love* a good progressive argument, though, as long as it's explained clearly.*
*(more information if you're curious: my standard for 'clearly' is, your opponents could make a reasonable refutation of your argument by thinking on their feet based on a reasonable HS-level amount of background knowledge about capitalism/racism/whatever, without having spent a ton of time studying theory/Ks in particular. I won't buy the response in rebuttal that progressive arguments are intrinsically unfair to competitors from small programs; I would buy the response that your opponents have not explained their arguments clearly and were tech-y enough that you can't reasonably respond without specialized knowledge.)
Speed is fine if you signpost well and your arguments are clear. (If you're making a complicated or subtle argument, slow down for that argument.) I won't read your speech doc, though. If I didn't hear it, you didn't say it.
If you're consistently interrupting your opponents in cross, I will ignore what you're saying when you interrupt them. Be courteous! Win on the strength of your arguments, not your aggressiveness.
Generally truth ≤ tech. Exceptions: I won't count it if you throw out an obviously objectively terrible response to an argument in rebuttal so that the argument's not officially conceded (that counts as "basically conceded" to me). I also can't bring myself to vote for arguments that are intrinsically and obviously offensive ("racism good").
-------------
World Schools:
Don't give me a PF/Policy/LD round! I really sincerely will base 40% of my decision on speaking style. Tech ≤ truth in WSD.
-------------
I hear some extempers are reading paradigms so they can use judges' personal interests in their AGDs. So: I love American football, particularly the Saints and the Patriots. Basketball: Celtics and Pels. I'm a math teacher and I have two cats. I'm non-binary. I will look kindly on references to Star Trek, The Good Place, Community, or the missed PI call in the 2019 NFC championship. Pineapple is great on pizza; hot dogs are not sandwiches.
Laura Culver
Mount Markham Sr High School
None
Michael Cummings
Kellenberg Memorial High School
None
Michelle Dacey
Notre Dame Prep.
None
Anna-Lisa Dahlgren
Sun Prairie
None
Nishita Das
Eden Prairie High School
None
Nivedita Das
Pine View School
None
Heather Davids
Fairfax High School
None
Alexander Davidson
University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy
None
Clare Davis
Yorktown HS
None
Becky Pruett Denham
Oak Grove HS
None
Joele Denis
American Heritage Broward HS
None
Meagan Deutch
Shawnee Mission North High School
Last changed on
Thu June 20, 2024 at 3:39 AM CDT
I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 12 years.
The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.
As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. I need you to explain clearly why each argument matters and why I should weigh one argument over another.
In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.
Lisa Devlin
Ursuline High School
None
Michelle Dietrich
Mercer High School
None
Susan Dillingham
St Thomas Aquinas
None
Teresa Dimka
Arundel High School
None
Jim Dlugasch
Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:27 AM EDT
I am relatively new to PF debate judging and have judged about 25 PF debates. I am ok with some speed, as long as you are clear when articulating your key contentions, subpoints, and rebuttals. While I do consider delivery, I am a flow judge and the team that is able to best argue and support their contentions with with logic and strong evidence, while effectively rebutting the contentions made by their opponents, will win the match. I place emphasis on when strong contentions (i.e., supported by clear evidence) are made by one team and not rebutted/addressed by the other team. In my view that's an implicit agreement with the contention.
When stating evidence, please ensure you provide the date when referencing.
On crossfire, my expectation is for each team to give each other the chance to ask at least one question.
I prefer for the teams to manage the debate round, including maintaining order and making sure to ask for prep time. I will have a timer, but teams are encouraged to maintain their time as well. I will ask at the beginning of the round, if teams want a 1-minute, 2-minute, etc. warning.
Please be courteous and respectful to each other.
Hannah Domaracki
Selinsgrove Area High School
None
Lindsey Donahue
La Salle College High School
None
Kylie Donovan
Milton Academy
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 3:36 PM EDT
I am a speech coach. I don't normally judge PF, but I competed in speech between 2012-2016. I have done PF a few times and have watched numerous PF rounds. I was a poli sci major and currently work in contract law. I would consider myself a lay judge.
Be clear, be concise. I do not enjoy source wars and taking lots of time to send sources to each other, read over, etc. Especially outside of prep time. Unless a source is absolutely untrue / making ridiculous claims, it is not effective debating to be overly scrutinizing over evidence. Don’t get caught up in solvency.
Substance > jargon
Clarity > speed
Quality > quantity of evidence
Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude.
Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread, I do not flow.
Molly Donovan
University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy
None
Marka Doolittle
Westfield High School
None
Will Dowling
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Irene Drabkin
Shrewsbury
None
Jian Du
Marriotts Ridge High School
None
Wylie Earnhart
Mercer High School
None
Shaletha Elam
University Academy
None
Ahmad Ennin
Columbia-Hickman High School
None
Carlie Enns
Republic County High School
None
Darsha Enns
Republic County High School
None
John Evans
Pittsburgh Central Catholic
Last changed on
Thu February 8, 2024 at 9:59 AM EDT
I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!
Public Forum
I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.
Lincoln Douglas
I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.
Policy
For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.
For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.
email - johnevans201413@gmail.com
Susan Ewing
Brookfield East
None
arman farshid
Lake Highland Preparatory School
None
Ashley Faulconer
Bardstown High School
None
Julianna Faulconer
VJ & Angela Skutt Catholic High School
None
Taylor Favata
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Maria Ferreira Wagner
Chanhassen High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:09 PM CDT
I prefer clearly articulated, rational argument over speed word vomit. A stronger presentation involves clear discussion of two or three main points, rather than a word gush of several points, within a short period of time. To me, the latter signifies that the speaker has done merely superficial research into the issue up for debate and is just throwing out verbage without much thought or substance.
Also, please don't waste precious time telling me "that's why I win" or "that's why my opponent loses." I know this is a competition and someone is going to win or lose. I don't need you to tell me. Phrases like this are just filler that carry zero weight for me. Focus on the substance of the issue. Your substantive discussion of the issue is what will determine who wins the round.
Oresta Ferrito
DePaul Catholic HS
None
Shataka Figgins
Peabody Magnet High School
None
Emily Fink
Brookline High School
None
Brandon Fisher
Rosemount Sr High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:36 AM CDT
I've got quite a bit of experience coaching, judging, and even competing in all the main debate events - Congress, Public Forum, LD, Policy, and World Schools. I will understand your terminology, I'll time you, and I understand the rules/expectations of the events. I've been participating in speech and debate for 16 years, coaching for 10, and this is my third year in Minnesota.
PF and LD Specifically: I tend to prefer the debate to be a tad bit slower. I'm also a big advocate of very structured speeches and structure to the debate as a whole. So like, signpost, line by line, one case at a time, etc. Also, please collapse throughout and give 2-3 voters or big issues at the end. You can still address line by line in FF though I don't prefer it. If you do, just remember to collapse and categorize. I also tend to prefer front-lining in 2nd rebuttal. I'm a big proponent of weighing and extensions as well, but like don't just use those things as a time dump alone. The majority of your rebuttals and summary speeches should be focused on the flow and responding to arguments line by line, but make sure to extend key arguments that go unaddressed and either weigh as you go or weigh at the bottom.
LD Specifically: Framework debate is extremely important in LD... HOWEVER, framework debate is somewhat pointless when it has nothing to do with the resolution. I don't really care why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a general sense. I care a lot more about why your framework is more important than your opponents framework in a resolutional sense. If you can't make your framework arguments specifically applicable to the topic at hand and the arguments you are making, then you are wasting your time debating it in the first place, and I will just end up using your voters, impacts, and weighing to make my final decision in the round.
PF/LD/Policy/WSD: I will rarely vote for a lazy debater. If I ever have to, you'll get very low speaker points. If you want to win a debate, you have to play the role of a debater. Here's how I break that down:
1. Debate has time limits for a reason. Your are practicing the art of understanding, preparing, and delivering arguments within a specific timeframe. If you have 3-5 minutes of prep time, you don't need 3 extra minutes to flash evidence/call for cards while you think of what you're going to say in the next speech. Flashing is prep time in all events.
PF: If you want to see a card, ask for it in cross ex, that way your opponents partner can pull it up and you can read it after cross ex when you start prep. Again, saving time. Ask for cards early, so we don't have to sit here waiting for them to find the card and I have to consider whether or not I should count that as prep and for which team.
2. Cross examination is not a time to ask random questions while you sit down and prep for your next speech. Every part of the debate counts. I'll also give low speaker points to a debater who sits during cross ex (other than grand cross in PF, and this doesn't include virtual tournaments. In a virtual debate, sitting is the norm and that is fine).
3. A large part of debate is presentational. In my opinion, spreading cards and cases alone is not debating. Cards don't beat cards, you have to explain the links, warrants, impacts, and weighing. I have ADHD and zone out very quickly if you aren't slowing down and explaining things or you aren't emphasizing the things I should be flowing. I can flow cases slower than I can flow rebuttals so please read a shorter case if you can so you don't have to spread. Exceptions for Policy only. If you do decide to spread, please slow WAY down on tags, and always include a short analysis at the end of each card.
4. K's and Theory are fine (especially in Policy), but slooooooow down. You have to explain that stuff to me or I won't be able to follow you. If you run it in PF just know that I may be very lost or unprepared as to how to deal with that or where to flow it. I'm not completely against it, but like only do it if you're really good at it, and be prepared to lose literally because I understood none of what you were saying due to lack of time to explain it.
5. Don't abuse prep time. Always tell me when you are starting and stopping prep. I'm timing you as well, so I will correct you if I need to but if I have to correct you it probably doesn't look good on you and may affect your speaker points.
6. Most importantly, do what you're good at. Like, I have a lot more experience with traditional styles of debate because that's the style we used where I was from. However, I also have a pretty strong understanding and comprehension of progressive stuff. Just do what you're best at. I'd much prefer a really good progressive debate, then a really bad traditional one and vice versa. I just might understand and flow the traditional debate a taaaad bit better though.
Congress:
PO: Between "Fast, Fair, and Efficient" I care most about fairness, second most about about efficiency, and I don't care at all about "fast." Be efficient of course, try to make sure that things are running smoothly and that you aren't taking extra time because you don't know the process or because you are adding unnecessary extra words to your phrasing, but I would much rather you take an extra couple of seconds to make an accurate decision which doesn't require me to correct you, than I would for you to make a quick decision in the hopes that you'll look better. It may not flow off the tongue as well, but "Accurate, Fair, and Efficient" would be my preference.
Also, some common phrasing that I think you can shorten:
- When calling on subsequent speakers after the first speaker on a piece of legislation, cut all the nonsense about "Seeing as that was the 3rd affirmative speech we are now in line for a 3rd negative speech. All those wishing to speak in the negation please rise." Cut it out. Just say "Negative speakers rise" "Affirmative speakers rise"
- For the end of a speech/start of questioning: "Thank you ____ for that speech of (time), questioners please rise" No need to say "We are now in line for 2/4 blocks of questioning"
- When calling subsequent questioners after the first questioner for a speaker, please do not waste time by saying things like "Thank you (questioner), the next questioner is (name)." Literally just call out the name of the next questioner at the same time as you tap the gavel twice for the end of one questioners block. "(tap tap) Rep. Blah"
Some other PO Notes:
- I appreciate when the PO shares their precedence sheet with the chamber in some sort of google spreadsheet or something.
- I think the PO should be consistent in reminding the chamber of any and all rules that are not being followed. "Please do not abuse the grace period" "You must ask permission to leave and exit the chamber"
- I think a really good PO can add super small yet effective elements to their responses which show more personality in general. I don't think "The chair thanks you" is necessarily enough for that since it's so common. I like when a PO is able to reword their responses to things in ways that are still accurate but which can add some slight, yet not time-consuming, humor to the round.
- The PO should recommend and remind the chamber not to stand for speeches or questions until they tap their gavel. This provides a more fair moment for all to stand rather than having some people stand right at the end of the speech while the PO is still talking.
- The PO should state at the beginning of the round: Gaveling procedures, how they are determining precedence and recency (and if it isn't preset, then what system will they use to fairly call on people at first), and any particular ways in which they will go about things like calling for speakers or questioners. If there are rules particular to a given tournament such as how precedence or recency should be used which are not common at other MN tournaments, the PO should also mention those at the beginning to make sure everyone is on the same page and there aren't random issues regarding precedence or recency or following those rules at the very start of the round.
Speakers: I dislike speaking from laptops. Laptops are generally best used when they can be placed on a podium or desk, not held up and balanced on one hand in the middle of a public speech. When you use a laptop to speak from, you are forced to have one of your hands constantly held up and there is a giant barrier between you and your audience. I prefer the use of a notepad, or second best would be an ipad with the intention being that you can actually hold those notes at your side for certain parts of your speech to show that you are prepared. I also believe strongly that you should be writing outlines, not speeches. You will likely receive a pretty low speaker score from me if you appear to be glued to your notes because you wrote too much down. The sign of a good speaker is someone who knows their speech or their topic well enough that they don't rely on the notes and can speak well regardless of whether or not they have them. Use the notes for sources or bullet point key ideas with short phrases. Please do not read to us, speak to us. Additionally, I think participation is important. You could be the number one speaker in a round but if you are clearly not engaged at all in questions, motions, etc. then it's likely I will knock you down some ranks because of that. On that same note, while I would hope all speakers decide to attempt to speak on all items, if you have purposefully made the decision not to speak on the first item for debate in a session, then my expectation is that you would be fully prepared to give one of the first speeches on the next item. On the note of preparation, please do not EVER delay a chamber for something that YOU want for YOUR own purposes but that you are NOT prepared for at the time you are asking for a delay. For example "We shouldn't move to previous question yet because I still want to speak" and then the chamber decides not to move to previous question, and when calling for speakers you don't immediately stand up.
Side note: One sided debate sucks. Please either swap sides or just be prepared to give an early speech on the next debate item. Also, I understand the culture of saying "I'm prepared for both sides" because that's a good skill to have as a debater, but I don't like how publicly and simply people are willing to swap sides in congress. I really dislike hearing students say "Yea I can swap sides" out loud in the middle of a recess. It really defeats the whole purpose of you actually trying to convince me that you care at all about the side of the debate you are on, and I think one of the things you should be trying to do as a congressional debater is really be assertive concerning your feelings on a topic. I'd much rather you say something like "I'm not sure which side I'm on yet" or at least make those side-specific decisions more privately. Perhaps even just hide the decision a bit better by making it seem like the decision was actually made after hearing some of the arguments and giving more of a refutation speech. On that note, I think the longer debate on an item goes on the more I should see speakers refuting other arguments.
Allison Flanagan
Mount Markham Sr High School
None
Stephanie Fletcher
Ridge High School
None
Liz Flippin
Muriel W Battle High School
None
Ethan Flood
Sun Prairie
None
Karen Flynn
Brighton
None
Kayla Fockler
North Star
None
Justin Foerster
Kenston High School
None
Adam Fontana
Berkeley Carroll School
Last changed on
Tue November 29, 2022 at 7:37 AM EDT
I am first time Debate judge, typically judging Speech, so please consider me a “lay judge.” I will take detailed notes to the best of my ability but please do your part to speak slowly and clearly with arguments that are easily processed by a layperson. Theory/Prog/Ks will not be understood and should not be run in front of me. Please make rebuttals coherent and with good coverage. Summary and final focus should write my RFD and voting issues for me. Good luck and have fun!
Erika Fontana
Berkeley Carroll School
None
Lilly Forry
Dallastown
None
Carrie Fortier
Charlotte Catholic High School
None
Madaline Foster
Lansing HS
None
Cory Fox
Westfield High School
None
Ryan Fox
Marian High School
None
Tyler Fox
Marian High School
None
Nate Freed
Collegiate Academy
None
Claire Freidhof
Rowan County Sr High School
None
Alexandria Frisch
Bancroft
None
Trinity Fritz Lawrence
Wayzata
None
Amy Fryda
Poland Regional High School
None
Jay Fulcher
Myers Park High School
None
Bonnie Gabel
Branson School
None
Anusha Gamage
Apex Friendship High School
None
Radha Ganni
Pennsbury High School
None
Kristin Gardell
Seton La Salle High School
None
Raji Garikapaty
Jefferson City High School
Last changed on
Mon May 20, 2024 at 5:37 AM CDT
I am a parent and have no preferences except that you speak clearly and be respectful. I am a lay judge with experience in judging events/debate for last three years.
Stephanie Garrison
Benjamin Franklin
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:05 AM CDT
I prefer no spreading, but I should be able to follow if absolutely necessary.
Overall, I am more traditional and look at Framework debates as well as how well cards are utilized.
My personal policy is I do not provide verbal feedback or announce the winner directly after the round. All notes, comments, and feedback are posted on my written ballots.
I do not prefer K cases.
Danielle Gartner
Boone County High School
None
Alicia Gaskin
Fort Pierce Central High School
None
Deanna Gervasio
Morris Catholic High School
None
Evan Getz
North Mecklenburg High School
None
Jenna Giakoumis
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Camila Gimenez Valero
Lake Nona High School
None
Paul Goldblatt
Sandy Spring Friends School
None
Marianna Golias
Westmont Hilltop
None
Ravi Gopalan
Byram Hills High School
None
Michael Gravame
Regina High School
None
Tommy Gray
Shawnee Mission East High School
Last changed on
Sat February 24, 2024 at 6:34 AM CDT
Open to all arguments but judge as a policymaker -- how is your plan going to work in today's current political, economic, etc. environment? Talk to me in plain language & define terminology. Be able to explain your arguments in your own words which shows me you know what you're talking about.
Danielle Greenberg
Gwynedd Mercy Academy
None
Maureen Gregory
Brigadoon HS
None
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:18 AM EDT
What I Prefer to See in a Debate:
1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.
2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a matter that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.
3. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.
4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.
5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.
6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.
7. Please do not run a topical case. Please speak to the resolution.
Jennifer Grooms
Notre Dame Prep.
None
Saul Grullon
University High School of the Humanities
None
Tara Grunde-McLaughlin
CR North High School
Last changed on
Thu January 25, 2024 at 2:32 PM EDT
Hello! I am a newer judge with two seasons of experience. I am impressed by the hard work students put into their preparation, and am looking forward to hearing your speeches!
Kinsley Grundy
Bardstown High School
None
Roan Guidry
Teurlings Catholic High School
None
Todd Gunderman
Cottonwood High
None
Lewis Gurgis
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Cherie Gustafson
Cape Elizabeth High School
None
Nestor Guzman
Syosset High School
None
Olga Guzman
Syosset High School
None
Kirstin Hackbarth
Ronald Reagan College Prep
None
Samantha Haines
Truman High School
None
Daryl Hall
Palm Beach Central High School
None
Taylor Hall
Munster High School
None
Kathleen Halm
York High School
None
Masab Hamid
The Chapin School
None
Jarod Hamilton
Mercer High School
None
Seth Hammond
Cumberland Polytechnic High School
None
Becky Hansen
Brigadoon HS
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:50 AM CDT
I've been part of debate since 2013. Most of my experience is in CX and PF. I was never a high school debater, but I am an English and speech professor. I coach novice and JV and believe that debate should be an activity centered on quality communication and logic - not speed, the volume of arguments, and bravado. For quality thoughts on winning judges, I loved this article: https://www.reddit.com/r/Debate/comments/16s6fec/a_former_pf_debaters_thoughts_on_how_to_win_more/.
I tend to be holistic in my evaluation of rounds. Not only did you have more arguments, but how do those arguments legitimately play out?
As the originator of Wisconsin's inclusion policies, I am highly attuned to arguments or arguers who come across as microaggressive, racist, sexist, or ableist in nature. This round WILL be a safe space for all.
PF Paradigm - Dos and Don'ts
Do - Tell me the story. Why is your world better than their world overall?
Do - Give me real-world impacts over big-boom impacts. We've had zero nuclear wars since we started arguing that a thing will lead to nuclear war - but people are dying every day from structural violence, weapons, poverty, etc.
Do - Cite quality evidence. Also, DO call out your opponents if they have bad sources. However, even if a team does not call out poor-quality evidence, I will consider it less if I am aware that it is sub-par evidence because I do not judge in a vacuum.
Do - Four-point your responses
Do - Clash with your opponents
Do - weigh your arguments against your opponent
Don't speed - I can't hear it. If it isn't on my flow, it didn't happen. Yes, I mean practically normal conversational speed. I will ask you to slow down a couple of times if you're too fast; after that, I won't flow what I can't hear.
Don't lie - don't say a team dropped something that they didn't. If it's on my flow and you make an accusation that is false just to try and win, you are more likely to lose instead due to your lack of integrity.
I am truth over tech. I will vote for one quality argument over arguments that don't outweigh.
Becky Hansen
Fort Atkinson High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:50 AM CDT
I've been part of debate since 2013. Most of my experience is in CX and PF. I was never a high school debater, but I am an English and speech professor. I coach novice and JV and believe that debate should be an activity centered on quality communication and logic - not speed, the volume of arguments, and bravado. For quality thoughts on winning judges, I loved this article: https://www.reddit.com/r/Debate/comments/16s6fec/a_former_pf_debaters_thoughts_on_how_to_win_more/.
I tend to be holistic in my evaluation of rounds. Not only did you have more arguments, but how do those arguments legitimately play out?
As the originator of Wisconsin's inclusion policies, I am highly attuned to arguments or arguers who come across as microaggressive, racist, sexist, or ableist in nature. This round WILL be a safe space for all.
PF Paradigm - Dos and Don'ts
Do - Tell me the story. Why is your world better than their world overall?
Do - Give me real-world impacts over big-boom impacts. We've had zero nuclear wars since we started arguing that a thing will lead to nuclear war - but people are dying every day from structural violence, weapons, poverty, etc.
Do - Cite quality evidence. Also, DO call out your opponents if they have bad sources. However, even if a team does not call out poor-quality evidence, I will consider it less if I am aware that it is sub-par evidence because I do not judge in a vacuum.
Do - Four-point your responses
Do - Clash with your opponents
Do - weigh your arguments against your opponent
Don't speed - I can't hear it. If it isn't on my flow, it didn't happen. Yes, I mean practically normal conversational speed. I will ask you to slow down a couple of times if you're too fast; after that, I won't flow what I can't hear.
Don't lie - don't say a team dropped something that they didn't. If it's on my flow and you make an accusation that is false just to try and win, you are more likely to lose instead due to your lack of integrity.
I am truth over tech. I will vote for one quality argument over arguments that don't outweigh.
Logan Hardgrave
McPherson High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:47 AM CDT
POLICY DEBATE IS AN EDUCATIONAL GAME AND I AM A GAMES-MAKER JUDGE. I REALLY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU RUN AS LONG AS YOU RUN IT INTELLIGENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AS LONG AS YOU “PLAY” THE GAME OF DEBATE BETTER WHEN IT COMES TO ARGUMENTATION, CLASH, AND ANALYSIS. BELOW IS A LINE BY LINE OF IMPORTANT NOTES AND TIPS ABOUT MY JUDGING STYLE.
EXPERIENCE:
-
4-year high school debater
-
Adept hired judge
-
Multiple tournaments judged this season and previous seasons
-
Mild knowledge of world politics
-
Medium knowledge of world history, though the older I get the more I forget
-
Spicy knowledge on debate terms and argumentation
SPEED:
-
Okay with speed, but if you’re gonna spread make sure I get the WHOLE of your evidence. Not a master doc, not a half filled doc, the doc with ALL the evidence you plan on reading during that speech
-
Make sure to slow down when transitioning between arguments or reading taglines, I need to at least understand some of your speech
-
Unless you’re the 1AR there is no reason to spread through the rebuttals. Slow down, choose the important arguments, and convince me you should win
-
If you don’t finish reading a card make sure to note that verbally before CX so everyone is clear on where you stopped
CROSS-EX:
-
Don’t be mean/snobby, it makes me want to vote against you
-
Always, whether you have good questions or not, use all of your CX time. It’s just a wise strategic decision to give your partner more time for speech building
-
While I think CX is important I don’t believe it is binding, however if it is obvious that someone doesn’t understand their argumentation rather than making a simple mistake I will consider that in my vote
-
Make sure you are actually ASKING questions and not just making statements
HARMS:
-
Harms are important, but make sure they are up to date and properly demonstrate the SQUO
-
I’d prefer if harms were labeled separately but I’m okay with them being flowed under justification or advantages. However, if asked in CX where your harms are, make sure to explain where they technically flow, whether that be justification, advantages, etc.
-
Harms should form your framework because they are the components that you label as the most important. So if you get into the framework debate make sure to reference your harms as part of that framework.
INHERENCY:
-
Inherency is also important, so make sure that your evidence is up to date and accurately displays the SQUO
-
Once again, I’m okay with inherency flowing under justification just make sure to make that entirely clear
-
If you’re on NEG try not to run inherency with DAs that contradict each other. For example if you say that the plan causes “x” impact and also that the plan is currently happening in the SQUO that puts you in a double bind and good teams will definitely catch you on that
-
Make sure you actually understand what inherency is, if you don’t believe it’s valid that’s one thing but at least understand what it is
SOLVENCY:
-
Make sure you actually have solvency cards that prove you solve for all the harms and impacts you label
-
Make sure you know who your solvency advocates are just in case you are asked during CX
-
DON’T powertag your solvency cards, they have to directly mention the subject of the plan and how it provides benefits for the SQUO. Good teams will tear apart a powertagged solvency card
ADVANTAGES:
-
I prefer impacts that are more realistic than terminal impacts, stuff like climate change, food scarcity, proxy wars, etc.
-
Make sure your advantages have proper internal links and make good logical sense at a quick glance
-
Advantages also help form your framework so at the end of the round when you’re pushing framework, use your advantages and harms to do so
PLAN:
-
I need to be able to have a solid grasp on what your plan is doing from plan text and plan planks alone, I hate AFFs that are purposely vague
-
Make sure you actually understand your case, I dislike when the AFF reads a case and then absolutely fumbles the bag knowing their case during CX
TOPICALITY:
-
I don’t like extra topical or effects topical cases, so I’m more inclined to vote against an AFF if the NEG can run a solid effects or extra topicality argument
-
STANDARDS and VOTERS are huge DON’T drop them
-
Unless an AFF is super untopical and abusive, topicality is more like a filler argument to me, don’t be afraid to run it but also don’t expect to win on it
DISADVANTAGES:
-
I think brink and uniqueness are important so try to have them in your DAs
-
Make sure you have proper internal linkage to the impact, I dislike DAs that make broad assumptions without proper evidence
-
Generic DAs are okay in my eyes, just don’t continue to push them if the AFF thoroughly dismantles them. Also, make sure they link to the case
-
Once again, I prefer realistic impacts over terminal ones
VAGUENESS:
-
Only run vagueness if they are intentionally being vague and there is proof of abuse, aka them being a moving target
-
Make sure to only run vagueness when the thing they are being vague about is valuable to the debate. Don’t focus in on a component of the case that means absolutely nothing in the context of the resolution, case, and debate as a whole
COUNTERPLANS:
-
PLEASE have CP plan text, even if you just copy and paste their plan text into your CP shell, at the least have something
-
Before you run CPs make sure you understand what conditionality, a perm, and a net benefit is, otherwise you might get into some trouble during round
-
Make sure your CP is not topical, otherwise you, as the NEG, would be affirming the resolution which is the AFFs job
KRITIKS:
-
I’m not super well versed in kritik debate so don’t rely on me to know when a response is poor or not
-
I understand the need for kritiks at some points but unless there is a super crazy link from something the AFF said, I’d rather just stay focused on the topic of the resolution
-
Whatever you do DON’T run an ableism kritik on someone for calling themselves stupid during round. I have a bad memory from when I was in high school so I’d rather not be reminded of that
PET PEEVES:
-
I hate the phrase “Is anybody not ready”
-
Be quick when sharing evidence, I hate just sitting around because people can’t figure out how to download and share their evidence. Just use Speech Drop it’s the most efficient method I’ve found
-
Use all of your speech time no matter the speech, there is always something more you can run or extend
-
Use all of your CX time even if it’s just for clarification
-
I dislike ad hominem attacks
Norma Harman
Cecilia High School
None
Bingham Harper
Denmark High School
None
Sanibel Harper
Denmark High School
None
Maryanne Harrington
Pocono Mountain West High School
None
Niamh Harrop
Horizon High School
Last changed on
Sat May 25, 2024 at 5:08 AM EDT
she/they
I debated for West Orange High School for 4 years in PF (& a little Congress). Let's be real, none of us really care about my competitive record. You can look it up on the NSDA website if you want specifics.
Crucial stuff first, then event specific stuff further down. If you still have questions after reading my paradigm, please do not hesitate to ask! And ALWAYS feel free to reach out with any further questions - my email is niamh.harrop@gmail.com :)
And, of course, don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, classist, etc!
EVIDENCE: This is at the top of my paradigm because it is the most important issue for me. If you are found to be falsifying/misrepresenting evidence, you can expect to lose the round. I will not call for evidence unless told to do so, as I believe that to be a form of judge intervention. That doesn't mean tell me to call for every single card, but if you believe something to be misrepresented, tell me to call for it and I'll do so at the end of the round.
Evidence calls should not take forever. If you take more than two minutes to find a card, I'm going to assume you don't have it and will likely drop your speaks. Once three minutes have elapsed, I'm going to ask that you drop the card and move on. If you provide a cut card and the opponent subsequently asks for a PDF, I'll give you a little more time to pull it up and locate the cited portion.
Also, the NSDA allows you to make a formal challenge against evidence, which will end the round at the point you issue the formal protest and defer judgment on the evidence to me. If you are right and the evidence is falsified, you win, but if I don't believe it has been misrepresented, you will lose. I believe evidence challenges like these are a fantastic tool when used correctly, and if you truly believe that your opponent is violating the evidence standards in a crucial way, I encourage you to utilise this tool.
JUDGING STYLE: Tabula rasa in terms of the topic. I like clear, easy-to-understand extensions - nothing blippy, no extensions through ink, just pure warranted extensions. If you want me to consider an arg, make sure it's in your final speech.
SPEED: I'm fine with speed, but I hate spreading. I think it's ableist and prevents newer/less funded programs from breaking into the top tiers of debate. Nine times out of ten I will vote against it. Complain about it if you want, I'm just trying to caution you.
If you choose to spread, I'm not going to stop you, but I do ask that you add me to the email chain (niamh.harrop@gmail.com) before the round begins, and please send me any cards that you spread in later speeches. Also understand it is going to be much harder for me to follow logic/warranting that you spread but don't include in the email chain. I can do the whole "clear" thing if you like, but chances are I'd be saying it a good amount. I will happily evaluate everything that is read into round if I can follow and comprehend it. However, there may be something you read into round that I miss because of spreading, and by choosing to spread, you accept and understand that this may occur.
PF: I tend to give a little bit of leeway with going over time. I'll flow until about 4:10 in the constructive, for example, but once you hit 4:15, I'm putting my pen down and I'm done paying attention. If your opponents go over time, don't call it out, bc I promise I'm not flowing or considering it. Call it free prep :)
I don't typically flow author names in the constructive. If you prefer to refer to your cards by author name in sum/FF, it helps me if you extend the warrant into rebuttal/sum as well.
Given that you now have three minutes for a summary, I'm a little harsher on what strategic choices are made in the summary speeches for both teams (I only had two minutes and yes I'm just a tad bit salty). I'm not going to vote on terminal defence so it's cool to leave that out of later speeches.
CONGRESS:
I know a lot of Congress competitors don't read paradigms. I can always tell when people don't read mine, and I don't really hold it against anyone in rankings or anything. My paradigm is here to help you understand how to best impress me and earn a high ranking.
I evaluate speaking style as much as I evaluate argumentation. Rehash sucks, we all know it, and after 3-4 people making the same arguments on each side, it's probably about time for something spicy and new. I'm more inclined to rank those with fresher argumentation.
I rank the PO about half the times I judge, and it comes down to a fair and efficient chamber. If you can run things smoothly, fairly, and painlessly, please consider POing.
If there's one thing I can't stand in Congress, it's the constant fight to be the one to "run the chamber" by calling for every motion. IMO it doesn't project the dominance you think it does; I couldn't care less who motions to move to previous questioning. I see this a lot more on the local circuit, but yeah, I'm not a fan.
Related to that is the issue of "politics" and gaming the chamber so that your competitors don't get to speak. In that regard, fair game. I view Student Congress as a mirror of the US Congress; if they set an example and you follow it, I can't fault you for that. That being said, don't allow the push to prevent people from speaking to descend into a mess and waste time (i.e., if you take up 3 minutes arguing over whether we should move to previous questioning, you've prolonged the discussion enough to prevent their speech). If this kind of filibustering occurs, I will probably be harsher in my rankings on the people who filibustered, and will be kinder in my rankings to the competitor who was unable to speak.
Ben Harvey
Starkville High School
Last changed on
Sat May 25, 2024 at 6:52 AM EDT
NCFL
Original Oratory
I am a traditional debate judge. The last time I did OO was in middle school. The speech I like the most (that was spoken best) wins! Your topic doesn't interest me so much, but that's not to say that a better topic won't be helpful as a vehicle for a more interesting speech. The way it's written is important of course!
Extemp
Thoughtful/unique analysis is key. I know with these topics you've seen 1,000,000+ times it's not always easy to say something that hasn't been said before, but try your best. I do not care that much about sources, and I think overloading is a little annoying.
Declamation
Declamation... declamation... yes
Juna Harvey
Murray High School
None
Angelea Heim
Marmaton Valley High
None
Christina Helmig
Jefferson City High School
None
Stephanie Hendrix
Bangor High School
None
Todd Hering
Eastview High School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:21 AM EDT
Todd Hering-PF Paradigm
I have coached debate since 1991 in a variety of formats.
Evidence ethics are important to me. Debaters should accurately represent the conclusions of credible authors. I do not support paraphrasing, but if you do, it needs to strictly conform to the original source.
I prefer fewer arguments that are well-developed with clear warranting. “Blippy” debate—many claims with limited explanation—is ineffective and unpleasant. I am unlikely to vote for an argument that isn’t developed over the course of the round. Please take the time when you first introduce an argument to clearly explain your reasoning. Arguments that have academic merit (rather than debate fiction) are more appealing to me.
Stylistically, I do not enjoy fast debate. In my ideal world, debate would develop and reward communication skills that are relevant beyond the world of competitive debate. I do understand that there are some competitive realities with time limits that force debaters sometimes to speak quickly. Also, being polite in cross-fire is expected.
Shannon Herring
Bishop McCort Catholic High School
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:46 AM EDT
Speed is an issue for me. If your constructive is read so fast that I can't understand, flow or follow your points, then I can't make any good decisions about clash. I would so much rather hear fewer arguments made articulately and with deeper understanding. Spreading just sounds like word salad to me and I will vote accordingly
Alec Hersh
Berkeley Carroll School
None
Deanna Hess
Seton La Salle High School
None
Alex Higgens
Stuyvesant High School
None
Jack Hilgert
VJ & Angela Skutt Catholic High School
None
Bonnie Hite
Penn Cambria High School
None
Andrew Hitzhusen
Bancroft
None
Dan Hodges
Apple Valley High School
None
Rory Hoeschen
Brigadoon HS
None
Ari Hoffman
VJ & Angela Skutt Catholic High School
None
Jacob Holbrook
Rowan County Sr High School
None
Sara Holbrook
Rowan County Sr High School
None
Cole Holden
Cumberland Polytechnic High School
None
Caleb Horowitz
Cary Academy
Last changed on
Wed April 24, 2024 at 4:59 AM EDT
I am primarily a speech coach, so effective public speaking and rhetoric skills appeal to me. I prefer debates that stay centered on the topic to kritiks. Please no spreading. I don't mind fast-paced arguments, but I'd like to be able to flow what is happening effectively, and for that to happen, I don't want to be missing huge chunks of your argument because of speed. Thanks!
Riley Houston
Madison Central HS
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:32 PM EDT
Make sure I can understand you; don't speak too fast!
Above all, be respectful to each other!
Armenia Howard
St. Mary's Preparatory High School
None
Andrew Howe
CR North High School
None
Michelle Huettl
Oshkosh West High School
None
Adam Huewe
Broad Run High School
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 12:13 PM EDT
Competitors:
Thank you for taking the time to read this paradigm, I trust that it will provide the necessary information to your success in this round.
What I value most in PF/LD debate:
1) Logically sound arguments. It does not matter how eloquent your speech sounds if your contentions are not logical and thorough. However, this does not mean that a good delivery is unnecessary; a solid delivery helps one properly convey the points of their argument. This is just to say that I don't want you to waste time on flowery language and irrelevant words that make one sound intelligent, if it is at the expense of your argument. Just speak plainly and strategically. Spreading is okay; but, if you are slurring your words it will be increasingly difficult for me to follow your arguments.
2) Good Cross-Ex. This back-and-forth is vital, and often where the winning team separates themselves
3) Be competitive, but always show respect to your opponent. This is a debate, so the conversation should be intense. However, this does not come at the expense of disrespecting your opponent or acting in an unprofessional manner.
Julie Huff
Nixa High School
None
Melissa Hunt
Kenston High School
None
Charles Hurd
Kearns High School
None
Farhan Hussain
Hunterdon Central Regional High School
None
Robert Hutchings
The Bolles School
None
Bianca Igwilloh
Barringer High School
None
Chioma Igwilloh
Barringer High School
None
Tate Jackson
Shawnee Mission West High School
None
Ria Jadhav
Eden Prairie High School
None
Amol Janorkar
Madison Central HS
None
Ashyia Johnson
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Jack Johnson
Neosho High School
None
Jonah Johnson
Apple Valley High School
Last changed on
Sat June 15, 2024 at 5:18 PM EDT
Hey ya'll!
In High school I competed for Apple Valley in Minnesota, But currently, I am competing on the college circuit for Western Kentucky University.
I am mostly an IE judge but if I am being honest...debate is more fun lol.
First of all, have fun and be respectful - enjoy every performance - these years will go by fast!
Speech Interp - I want to believe you, engage me - show me that your story DEMANDS attention.
Speech PA - How is your speech structured? Is it accessible and easy to follow? ARE YOU TELLING ME SOMETHING NEW?! Deliver your speech like it is the most pressing/important information I as your judge will hear all day.
Debate - Please do not spread to quickly, I don't like scrolling through your cards - I would rather just hear and flow your contentions based off what you are saying. I would consider myself a lay judge in debate - break it down for me - tell me WHY you should win.
If you have any questions about your ballots feel free to email me...
jonahsolomonjohnson@gmail.com
Olaf Johnson
Dirigo High School
None
Reese Johnson
Apple Valley High School
None
Ross Johnson
Marquette University High School
My email is johnson@muhs.edu
LD
I am a debate coach who was a competitor at Nationals in World Schools and Congressional Debate, and was mainly a PF debater when competing. That being said, I have coached and judged LD extensively in the past year.
Please ensure that we are debating the LD format, not Policy-lite. That means a few things.
-
Values and Value Criterions are extremely important and are central to who will win this round. If you do not keep these well-connected to your arguments, it will be difficult for me to weigh your arguments as strongly if they do not connect back into your VC.
-
All-out spreading is not necessary or appreciated. If you are speaking so fast that it is impossible to flow your arguments, then I cannot weigh them in good faith. Win on the strength of your arguments and analysis, not by trying to overwhelm the opponent. Quality over quantity.
-
If you choose to use them, run K’s well. If they are not run in well, it ends up muddying the waters of the debate and taking time away from other approaches you could probably use more effectively. K’s are complex strategies- explain your points clearly and tie them into the larger debate.
-
LD debates involve morals, values, philosophy. Please use these things that make this format distinct.
As for more general points, here are some preferences I have as a judge.
Signposting and roadmaps, both in the introduction and throughout the speeches, are greatly appreciated. Keep your points clear and well-organized. Just because something is clear in your head does not automatically mean you are communicating it effectively.
I am not a fan of T-Shells in general. I would prefer to see a debate about the topic at hand, not a debate about the format in a general sense. This does not mean it is impossible to win with one, but please engage with the topic and with your opponent.
Ask good questions, and build off of them in your speeches. In the same sense, try not to waste time on rambling, disorganized answers. Keep CX dynamic and fast, and make it valuable. If something is conceded in CX, don’t just ignore that it happened. I certainly won’t.
Be ethical. No racism, homophobia, ad hominem attacks, or anything of that sort will be tolerated. You are all capable of good decorum, so show it! Approach the round with good faith, and debate as such.
Please use weighing and voters in your later speeches. Analyze the round and show me why you win.
Ryan Joseph
Poly Prep Country Day School
None
Karson Kalashian
Orosi High School
None
Erez Kalir
The College Preparatory School
None
Sumati Kapoor
Paul Laurence Dunbar HS
None
Lauren Kaufman
Upper St Clair High School
None
Jacob Kemp
The Potomac School
Last changed on
Sat June 15, 2024 at 3:27 AM EDT
I am a Cancer with a Gemini moon and a Leo rising :) If you would like to send me docs my email is jacobkemp23@gmail.com
I AM LAY, A SIMPLE SPEECH JUDGE, PLEASE BE NICE TO ME, IWILL CRY.
I WILL FLOW THOUGH I PROMISE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GO TOO FAST.
I am interested in hearing Kritikal arguments and debate, so do not stray away from that just because you see im a lay judge. (I'm not the lay-est tbh).
Please make sure you are being as specific in your description of arguments.
Logic and realism is important to me. Make me logically believe your argument and impacts. If its TOOO much of a stretch it may affect my decision. But i'll probably buy more than you think.
David Kennedy
Regis High School
None
Tom Kennedy
Kellenberg Memorial High School
None
Miranda Kerrigan
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Patty Kersten
Jefferson City High School
None
John Keyho
Pittsburgh Central Catholic
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2024 at 10:39 AM EDT
Email chain, please! jkk34@pitt.edu
he/him
Pittsburgh Central Catholic '21 (currently coaching)
If I am judging you in debate, please keep in mind that I am not trained in any style of debate. Please go slow, please warrant your arguments, and please refrain from using jargon.
Addie Kimmerle
Greenwood Laboratory School
Last changed on
Wed March 20, 2024 at 5:25 PM CDT
She/they
kimmerle.debate@gmail.com
About me: Currently debating for Missouri State University in NDT/CEDA & coaching at Greenwood Labs and Liberty North High School. I'm an NFHS topic author for HS policy debate which gives me an interesting insight into debates. My views about what debate looks like/should be are constantly evolving to keep up with my experiences and community 'norms.'
About me as a judge: I'm pretty open to any argument or style. I'll go off of my flow when making my decision focusing on impacts and clash. The best way to win my ballot is to "write it for me." Show me through evidence why your [case/impacts/alt/etc] are more important and then tell me how you better resolve [insert issue here]. This can vary based on each round or position so I will try to address these below.
DA: Yes. A good disad with a CP is probably my current go-to when I'm negative. Read your best link cards in the constructive(s), the more specific the better.
CP/PICs: Yes. As I said above, love a CP/DA combo. Make sure you outline how it solves the aff and doesn't link into your other offense. I think the neg can get away with 2 CPs before conditionality becomes a major voting issue (remember: you should always condense down for the 2NR!!).
K: Sure. I'm comfortable with K arguments but I might not be super familiar with the literature. I do think you need an alt with your K because I need to understand what happens if/when I vote for it. If you have a performative component to your argument, explain its function and utilize it as offense throughout the debate -- you read it for a reason, tell me about that reason!
Theory: Maybe?? I'm going to assess topicality separately (below) since I weigh it differently. As I have progressed in my career, my opinion on theory has changed significantly. I find myself voting less and less on funding, enforcement, over-specification, or whatever else you can come up with. I just feel like it's incorrectly used to try and win my ballot in a 'slimy' way. I'd rather you run it as a solvency analytic without the interp, violation, standards, etc.
With all of that said, I understand that many participants view theory as a key part of debate so I will continue to weigh it the same as other arguments.
Topicality: Yes. Against policy aff, I think T is a viable option. The neg should define words in the resolution in the 1NC, and then put any [TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact] framing issues in the 2NC/1NR block. The 2NR should specifically go between explaining the disadvantages to the aff interp and line by lining the 1AR responses.
Adam King
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:35 AM CDT
I debated for 4 years in Kansas in the late 80s and early 90s.
I have been a head coach in high school for 19 years.
I can listen somewhat quickly…but not very fast. I’m a very traditional policy-maker.
Standard things:
I want really good explanation of all arguments. I try hard not to do analysis work for you. Overviews really help me!
Topicality- If the case is clearly non-topical, please run the argument and I’ll pull the trigger on it pretty quickly. If it is probably topical…I am very slow to pull that trigger.
Kritiks- Not really a fan. I am very policy-maker in this regard. If you choose to run a K, I will listen and try and understand it. However, the way my brain works in a debate context is that I will probably weigh the impacts of the K against the other team’s impacts…you know…like a policy maker would.
Counterplans – probably a good thing to have. Not a fan nit-picky word pics, but agent counterplans and others like it are a good thing for me..
Kritikal affs- Not a fan…they typically confuse me…
Jill Kirby
Regis High School
None
Aidan Klinges
Berkeley Carroll School
None
Beth Knapp
CR North High School
Last changed on
Sat April 6, 2024 at 3:28 AM EDT
I am a parent judge who normally judges speech, but I will fill in where my daughter’s team needs me . Please speak clearly and be respectful with asking and answering questions. Please do not talk too fast. If I miss your point, I cannot give you credit for it. Clear and organized arguments are essential. Provide a clear roadmap at the beginning of your speeches to guide me through your contentions. Quality over quantity: Focus on developing a few strong arguments rather than presenting a multitude of weak points. I feel most engaged when listening to speakers who speak clearly and from memory rather than just speed reading a case . Eye contact is also important. Evidence is important, but so is making logical connections to the resolution. I want to know what are the real world implications of your arguments? Having strong convictions while still being respectful to the other team is also quite a talent
irina konstantinovskaya
Upper St Clair High School
Last changed on
Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:50 AM EDT
I am a traditional judge. Make sure to explain everything very clearly, and I will have a hard time voting if all I get is just evidence and 0 warranting (logical explanation of the evidence).
Martha Krieger
Shikellamy High School
None
Thiyagarajan Krishnan
DuPont Manual High School / Youth Performing Arts School
None
Last changed on
Tue February 27, 2024 at 8:40 AM EDT
I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.
Ginger Kroeze
St. Andrew's Episcopal School
None
Ben Kroll
Sheboygan South High School
None
Melanie Kyer
York High School
None
Marlo Lacson
Loyola Blakefield
None
Jeremy Lambert
Shrewsbury
None
Adriana Lamour
Windermere High School
None
Rose Lawler
Shawnee Mission West High School
Last changed on
Wed March 27, 2024 at 4:04 AM CDT
I debated in the 1980s. While I maintained the "stock issues" paradigm for a decade or so after that, I have become more progressive. Twenty-four years of coaching have demanded it.
My coaching resume:
4 years KCK-Washington High School (UDL debate)
10 years Shawnee Mission North
12 years Shawnee Mission West
1 semester Palo Alto High School/California circuit
What I do not like:
DISRESPECT OF ANY KIND . . . check your sarcastic tone, your eye rolls, and your bad attitude at the door. Be a good person.
provocative language (especially slurs; I know people use them in real life, but I do not need to hear them in a debate round to be "woke")
super fast spreading (I need slower tags, and I need you to slow down if I clear you)
theory debate
extensive counterplan debates; keep it simple
What I like:
topic-centered debate
real-world application
K debates where things are explained to me in a way to make me feel morally obligated to decide correctly
strong 2NR and 2AR . . .my favorite speeches!
people who are kind but assertive
Caitlin Leahy
The Mary Louis Academy
None
Steven Leal
BASIS Independent
Last changed on
Tue March 5, 2024 at 1:39 PM PDT
To be clear, I'm a speech coach. I am proficient enough in flowing rounds and can effectively keep up with the debate. However, if spreading is utilized, you run the risk of losing me entirely. Additionally, strategies such as running theory or K's are unlikely to lead to a winning outcome in my view. I prefer debates that are grounded in linking arguments back to a value or standard set during the rounds. Please signpost clearly so I can follow the flow more effectively. I don't want to direct the debate in any particular direction; structure it as you see fit, keeping my background and preferences in mind.
Pamela Leifer
CR North High School
Last changed on
Thu January 18, 2024 at 2:58 PM EDT
Competitors must speak clearly: volume, speed, and defined content. Spreading will result in deductions.
Cindy Leighton
Sumner Academy of Arts and Science
Last changed on
Fri February 23, 2024 at 9:07 AM CDT
I have been judging debate for over twenty years, but am old myself so when I debated in high school it was very different (real cards). I am a teacher (I teach cultural anthropology so we discuss a lot of social justice issues) but not a debate coach. I like to see that debaters understand what they are saying - that they can explain in their own words, not just read endless cards at top rate speed without explaining why the cards are relevant.
Harms, inherency, and solvency are the most important Aff stock issues for me. I want to know what problem you are trying to solve and how you are going to do it. And why it will continue to be a problem without your plan. I am very interested in real world problems.
Counterplans and generic DAs are fine from Neg, but again, I like to at least see a firm link.
Topicality is fine - but I don't love the generic harm to debate, I love some good word play, so if you can convince me something isn't topical by really delving into language I will sometimes judge on that.
Kritiques are sometimes okay- I like to see real world issues being brought up and debate tied to real world issues. But if they get really esoteric I honestly get lost.
Again - I like to see direct clash, ties to real world, debaters who understand what they are saying and can explain it to me.
I prefer medium speed - if you are unintelligible I get nothing out of that.
Patricia Leonard
Hunterdon Central Regional High School
None
Hongjie Li
Moravian Academy Upper School
None
Junxin Li
Marriotts Ridge High School
None
Yinyan Li
Shrewsbury
None
Karen Lichtenberger
West Boca Raton High School
None
Carolina Lima
Shrewsbury
None
Mihika Linge
Eden Prairie High School
None
Tracie Liska
Central HS Springfield
None
Bryan Little
McPherson High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:46 AM CDT
I prefer traditional debate with clash and reasonable speed. I've done this for awhile so you can run what you run as long as the analysis justifies why I should vote. Not a big fan of K debate but if you can do it well, go nuts. Tabula rasa but I'll default to policy maker if not given a reason to vote.
*I teach AP American Government. It would be in your best interest to either 1. Argue funding/enforcement/federalism accurately structurally or 2. Avoid them like the round depends on it (it often does). I'm unlikely to vote on funding/enforcement/federalism arguments that are misunderstood or misapplied. Telling the judge how government works while not knowing how government works hurts the credibility of your argument.
Rebeca Lopez-Anzures
American Heritage Palm Beach HS
None
Michael LoRusso
Half Hollow Hills HS East
None
Cole Lowe
Fairview (PA)
None
Megan Luke
Huntington High School
None
Halie Luken
Marmaton Valley High
None
Stephanie Mace
Cottonwood High
None
Meghan MacFarland
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Elisa Maguigad
Union Catholic
None
Brooke Maier
St. Andrew's Episcopal School
None
Patty Malaney-Boyle
Mercy High School
None
Joanne Mallie
Brigadoon HS
None
Jen Mallow
Archbishop Moeller High School
None
Jeff Mangum
Brigadoon HS
None
Holly Manning
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Tara Manning
Metropolitan Expeditionary Learning School
None
Anne Manual
Carrollwood Day School
None
David Marques
Northstar Academy High School - Newark
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:48 AM EDT
Avoid spreading unless extremely necessary for your argument.
Avoid disparaging or discriminatory language both in your arguments as well as towards your opponents.
looking for strong argumentation directly related to res, as well as strong articulation of arguments.
Dmitri Martínez
Brigadoon HS
None
Tania Martinez
John I Leonard High School
None
Jordan Mayer
Munster High School
None
Emily McBee
Spring Hill High School
Last changed on
Tue March 5, 2024 at 12:07 PM CDT
In high school, I didn't participate in debate or forensics. Although this is my first year as an assistant coach in these areas, I have four years of experience as a judge. My daughter competed in debate and forensics for four years as well. Currently, I have been teaching middle school social studies for ten years.
Debate Paradigm:
No need to shake my hand; knucks will do. My voting preference is based on stock issues, and I generally lean against Kritiks and arguments on topicality. However, I am open-minded if the argument is sound. I'm not a fan of T, as I believe it doesn't address the resolution.
Speed debating just to fit more words into your speech doesn't appeal to me. I prefer quality over quantity; condense your arguments to win. I judge based on what you bring up in the round, and I may focus on flowing or look at your speeches in speech drop.
I view debate as a game, appreciating judge adaptation. However, big theory debates may be frustrating for me to work through, and you might not be satisfied with my decision. Don't assume I'm familiar with every concept; if I seem confused, I probably am.
Kindness and courtesy matter. I don't appreciate aggressive debate for show. Passion is welcome, but keep emotions in check. No personal attacks; I won't vote for you. I value sportsmanship—be respectful while being competitive. Cutting each other off is expected, but disrespectful behavior results in a deduction in speaker points.
I usually make decisions quickly, not because I'm not paying attention but because I don't need a long time to sort things out.
Forensics:
IEs - This is your time to shine. Entertain me, make me feel the emotions you are portraying. Tell me a story. Intense material is ok with me as long as it is purposeful and well done. I do appreciate a trigger warning if the content is graphic.
PAs- Sell me on your "product." I may or may not know about the topic you are speaking on however I enjoy hearing your take on the subject. I will not judge you on the topic you choose rather on how you educate me. I've heard seen PAs at all levels of competition, I know what it takes to get to the next level.
Barb McCann
Lakewood Ranch High School
None
Cindy McCracken
Research Triangle High School
Last changed on
Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:42 AM EDT
I have been judging speech events since 2021, including at Nationals in 2022, where I attended a class on judging. I work hard to be well versed on the criteria for all the speech events and judge them accordingly. Overall I consider the choice of piece/quality of cutting; emotional connection to the piece and audience; confidence and eye contact; organization; and pacing.
Melissa McLeod
Pine View School
None
Anthony McMurray
Rockhurst High School
None
Colleen McNamara
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Michell Medina
Cimarron High School
None
Dhruvi Mehta
Eden Prairie High School
None
Lisa Melanson
Cape Elizabeth High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:11 PM EDT
Lincoln-Douglas: I am a traditionalist and expect that the value and criterion will be buttressed with a philosophical underpinning.
I do not appreciate spreading. Speak at a normal speed.
In PF debates, I do not stop time for a team to ask for evidence from an opponent. I expect each team to supply the requested URL or source in a timely manner within the requesting team's prep time. In short, I expect good sportsmanship on both sides, but "time outs" to ask for evidence slow down the pace and let the air out of the debating balloon, so to speak.
In PF cross-fire, I do not appreciate long prefacing before the asking of a question.
Ashley Mercer
De Soto High School
None
Last changed on
Sat May 25, 2024 at 10:03 AM EDT
I coach PF at Phillipsburg High School and am a pretty standard PF judge. I make my decisions based on weighing, rhetoric, topical arguments and argumentative structure.
PF Paradigm:
Email Chains: Do not include me on any email/evidence chains, I trust and expect you to present any evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of argument on a specific piece of evidence (or more) I will ask for that card and evaluate it .
Progressive Debate: I’ll never drop anyone based solely on their case (unless it is offensive or otherwise egregious) but I will say that running theory or a K won’t get you very far with me. I’m open to the idea of a good faith interrogation of the logic of a particular resolution but just I would say don’t do it unless you have something really good.
Weighing: To me, comparative weighing and clear impacts are the bread and butter of debate. Impacts should be explicit and clearly backed up. I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, I care very heavily about impact-driven debates, and good weighing.
Other Notes:
-
Frontlining in the second rebuttal is crucial.
-
Spell out any links, turns and extensions clearly. I don't just want to hear the cards, I need to know what piece of evidence you are using. So don't say "Extend the Johnson card," Say "Extend the Johnson card which says a increase in..."
-
Be sure to Signpost. A messy debate makes for a worse decision, so for everyone's sake it's good to know where we are on the flow
-
Keep it civil during crossfire and grand crossfire
-
I am usually good with speed but if you start spreading, I will stop writing. If you are going too fast i will motion to you to slow down
-
I will almost certainly not buy your nuclear war impact unless it is directly related to the resolution
-
If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you
Kelly Michale
Ruskin
None
Kelli Midgley
Wilde Lake High School
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 8:27 AM EDT
I am an old-school LD judge. I want a good value clash throughout the round. I loathe spreading; if I can't understand you, I will rely on your opponent to tell me what you said. If you call out drops, you must also give me impacts for them to have any weight with me. You can win my ballot with substantive philosophical arguments, and you can lose my ballot if you get mired in policy.
Charles Midkiff
Parkersburg High School
None
Ariona Miller
Marysville High School
None
Macee Miller
Jackson-Reed High School
None
Jesse Milnor
Murrah High School
None
Todd Mincks
Nixa High School
Last changed on
Tue May 7, 2024 at 2:36 AM CDT
I value stock issues, communication (speed is okay, but not preferred...unintelligible spreading is strongly discouraged). I value clear clashing on stock issues.
Elizabeth Minnigh
Thomas Jefferson HSST
None
Dana Mollica
Half Hollow Hills HS East
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:24 PM EDT
I consider myself to be a traditional debater. I like hear a good, well spoken argument. It is important to see that the debater understands what they are arguing rather than simply regurgitating information as quickly as they can.
I don't like spreading and will not side with an argument that I can not clearly understand.
Progressive debate is not my preference but if it is done well and the argument is still clearly made, I will not mark down for it or vote against it. I will also add, be wary of "one size fits all" arguments. Be sure that your critiques, if you have them, fit the resolution that you is being debated. We are here to debate the current resolution only, the fact that "other problems exist in society" is a given, if a particular issue affects the resolution and can be used as a reason why it should not be passed or even considered then I consider that a valid argument but simply stating that the world isn't perfect for xyz reason is not a reason for me to vote in your favor
Dana Mollica
Teresa Moncrief
Madison Central HS
None
Lance Montebon
Murrah High School
None
Jennifer Moore
Olentangy High School
None
Lucero Moreno Jimenez
Orosi High School
None
Stefanie Morisi
Xaverian High School
None
Lavontae Morrow
Ridge High School
None
Lauren Morus
Conemaugh Valley High School
None
Michelle Mueller
Ronald Reagan College Prep
None
Dolores Muller
Wauseon
None
Julie Muoio
Our Lady of the Sacred Heart High School
None
Geoffrey Murakami
BASIS Independent
None
John Murphy
Catholic Memorial School
None
Sandy Myers
Cimarron High School
None
Kathleen Naessens
Gwynedd Mercy Academy
None
Varadharajan Nagharajan
Strawberry Crest High School
None
Samridhi Nallamshetty
Robinson High School
None
Ellen Nary
Walton Central High School
None
Jerrod Nelson
Wayzata
None
Josh Neuschafer
Cimarron High School
None
Sarah Nevsimal
Brookfield Central High School
None
Lara Nezami
The Bolles School
None
Jennifer Nider
Wamego High School
None
Maddie Nolen
Upper St Clair High School
None
Sudeeksha Nooka
Eden Prairie High School
None
Tina O'Bayley
Syosset High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 7:38 AM EDT
Stay on topic. Make sense. Have your evidence ready to share. Do not speak so fast that I can't understand you. Watch your aggressions, above all respect yourself and your opponents.
Alexis O'Connell
Sun Prairie
None
Peggy O'Donnell
Sunrise Christian Academy
None
Kenn O'Drobinak
Munster High School
None
Oluwadamilare Odukomaiya
Newark Central High School
None
Anna Oehler
Broad Run High School
None
Justin Oettinger
Olympic Heights Community High School
None
Chidera Okeke
Newark Central High School
None
Mandela Okere
Stuyvesant High School
None
Justina Oluwayomi
Ben Davis High School
None
Carol Osborn
Bishop Foley Catholic
None
Natalie Otoo
George School
None
Sam Overton
Lebanon High School
None
Esther Oyetunji
American Heritage Broward HS
None
Mary Oyler
Windber Area High School
None
Fernando Paiz
Milton Academy
None
Charles Palmer
Lincoln College Prep
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 6:19 AM CDT
Name
Charles Palmer
Current institutional affiliation
Lincoln College Preparatory Academy, Kansas City, MO
Current role at institution
Head Debate Coach
Previous institutional affiliations and role
Foreign Language Academy - Head Debate Coach
Debating experience
High School Competitor and Head Coach
What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? (Possible answers may include: referee, policymaker, tabula rasa, stock issues, capable of effectuating change or educator). Please elaborate
I’m of the tabula rasa mindset. I accept all arguments and opponents should be prepared to clash with whatever is brought up in a debate round. I will vote for affirmative cases that have no plan or are not necessarily topical on its face if the negative team fails to win their arguments against these types of cases. It should be the ultimate goal of each team to be the most persuasive. My favorite debates are those with great clash and passionate speech. I have no issues with performance teams, but what they say will hold more weight than how they say it.
I will say that I tend to roll my eyes at most claims of 'abuse'. If you're going to claim that another team is abusive, there better be some real validity to it. Don't claim that you didn't have time to prepare for an Aff case that's been on open evidence since the beginning of the season. Additionally, racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other hateful types of comments or arguments will not be tolerated.
I do not count flash time or road maps against prep and debaters should keep their own time. I don’t expect debaters to share evidence with me, unless I request it for the purposes of determining validity or making a final decision, but the debaters should absolutely share evidence with one another. I will only consider arguments that are made from each debater and/ or read in evidence. Open cross-ex is fine, as long as both teams agree to it. Some speed is okay, but make sure I can understand your argument and include me on the speech drop or email chain.
My normal speaker point range is 20-30. I consider not only clarity and how well a debater speaks, but also how persuasive they are and the organization of their thoughts. It is on the debater to be clear from the beginning.
Most of my experience is with policy, but I do have some LD and PF experience. Persuade me.
Vincenzo Paniccia
Loyola Blakefield
None
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2024 at 3:06 AM EDT
Standard, traditional judge, with experience across all events.
Appreciate clash, weighting, and topicality. Structure of your argument should be explicit ("this, therefore that"). I avoid making any connections on my own. Think about it this way--do you really want the judge having to define your argument for you?
Ks: I don't like them. I accept that they're here to stay and can tolerate them in LD (in good faith), but will be skeptical. I do not consider your opponent to have an obligation to treat the K as valid. Ks have no place in PF. Same goes for other nontraditional strategies and theory battles.
Speed is not an issue. I can keep up. If you're somehow going too fast, I may notify you to slow down, or even stop notetaking entirely, but this is rare. If you plan on spreading you better have explicit signposting.
Tech-versus-truth: Moderate. Use your best judgment. As stated above, links should be explicit.
I will not buy wide leaps in logic and do not appreciate attempts to overwhelm opponents with unwieldly links. "This, therefore this, therefore this, therefore this" is not good faith debating and is often nontopical. If you're being especially egregious I may knock you on topicality even if your opponent does not
Full disclosure: I consider all of forensics to be primarily about public speaking but will not be won over by rhetoric, volume, or flowery imagery. Vocal skills matter but that alone will never win the round.
Hold each other accountable, especially on timing. If a speaker goes way over time, that is the opponent's fault for not stopping them.
Christy Pawlowski
North Star
None
Bryant Peck
VJ & Angela Skutt Catholic High School
None
Larina Peck
Lake Nona High School
None
Veronica Peck
VJ & Angela Skutt Catholic High School
None
Tammy Perez
Osceola Fundamental High
None
Caroline Perez-Lozano
Sumner Academy of Arts and Science
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:17 PM CDT
Name: Carolina Perez-Lozano
Current Affiliation: Kansas State University
Experience: Competing in Forensics for 5 years and dabbled in Congressional debate for a year. Currently on K-State's Speech Team.
List of Types of Arguments That I Prefer to Listen to:
- Real world impacts.
- Kritical arguments. (Describe it well and explain the world of your alt.)
- Known and understand what you are reading and debating. (Be able to explain your cards.)
List of Types of Arguments That I Don't Prefer to Listen to:
- Topicality (Not a fan of it being used for a time-filler, but if ran correct it's perfectly okay to run topicality).
- Spreading to the point where not a lot of people can understand what you are saying or if you're mushing all of your words together.
Speed: A medium-fast speaking speed that is still understandable.
List of Stylistic items I like to Watch:
- Seeing clash happening during cross-x and rebuttals.
- Seeing the debater's personalities during cross-x and rebuttals.
- Impact Calc.
List of Stylistic items I don't like to Watch:
- Inconsistent and unrecognizable speed.
- Not being able to understand what is being said in this round because of volume or speed.
Non-tolerable: Any racist, sexist, homophobic, prejudice, etc. comments mentioned in the round will result to an automatic loss.
Linda Peterson
Neenah High School
Last changed on
Sun February 18, 2024 at 3:43 AM CDT
I am a volunteer judge. I have judged both forensics and PF Debate both in state and at national tournaments.
According to the coach I work with, these are the things I need to tell you:
Consider me a "Lay" judge, and I can handle (at most) a fast conversational speech.
I have zero background in debate, so I don't understand the debate-specific vocabulary.
I do have a good understanding of politics and a basic understand of philosophy. When laying out your Value and Value criterion, make sure you are really clear about what you want me to know about the particular philosopher/theory you are working with.
Please... do not run Kritiks, crazy weird cases, or anything wild in front of me. I can guarantee I won't understand what you are trying to do and might have to drop you since I don't know what it means. I STRONGLY encourage you to only run standard lay debate cases in front of me.
Eve Peyton
Benjamin Franklin
None
Bobby Phelps
Fort Osage High School
None
Dennis K. Philbert
Newark Central High School
None
Prince Philip
Vista Del Lago High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 8:08 AM PDT
I've been judging speech events since 2016.
For me, having clarity and to-the-point communication style matters. Leverage those effective oral presentation skills, with the use of pacing, voice modulation, strong and effective eye contact, meaningful pauses and I look for body language that amplifies your voice. Connect with your audience and exuberate confidence
Marie Pinlac
The Mary Louis Academy
None
Kelly Placide
Sacred Heart Academy
None
Michael Planey
Alexandria City High School
None
Gloria Potter
North Allegheny
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:07 PM EDT
I am an inexperienced PF judge; I have judged one PF round.
I am an experienced speech judge, and I coach extemporaneous speaking. In reading events, I expect competitors to at least pay lip service to simulation of reading (never looking down until a minute into the speech is a big red flag).
Vivan Powers
Shrewsbury
None
Jennifer Pringle
Cape Elizabeth High School
None
Demi Protonentis
Syosset High School
Last changed on
Tue May 7, 2024 at 10:23 AM EDT
Hi! I have been a public school teacher for 26 years and a Speech and Debate Judge for 2 years! I will be keeping notes/comments throughout your presentation.
Chase Provencher
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Kristoffer Puddicombe
Ronald Reagan College Prep
None
Holly Pycke
Platte County High School
None
Srikant Radhakkrishnan
Sacramento Waldorf High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 2:37 PM PDT
The tenets for nailing my ballot are:
- Clarity - In structure & expression
- Creativity - In thought and rendition
- Energy - In inspiration and transformation
Dina M Radovic
Academy Of The Holy Names
None
Shawn Rafferty
Maize High School
None
Taylor Rafferty
Maize High School
Last changed on
Thu July 18, 2024 at 3:12 PM CDT
Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.
My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com
About me (If you care)
I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.
General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.
2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.
3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.
4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.
5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.
6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.
7. If you can be funny or sarcastic in a round (not at the expense of actually debating well), then more power to you. I will probably give you more speaks.
Traditional LD
Only Warning
I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.
General Things
1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)
2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.
3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.
4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.
Public Forum Debate
1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.
2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down
3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.
Policy Debate
Just a few general things specifics are under my prefs.
1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
2. My speed threshold is around 7/10 if that is any help at all (Probably not). I will yell "clear" if you're going too fast for me. If you ignore me I will be very sad. Please SLOW WAY DOWN on the analytics you don't put in the doc. I won't flow analytics if you zoom through them.
3. Open cross is fine.
4. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.
Prefs
1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms explain how it functions within the certain perm you read .
2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue getting increasingly ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to go for it if you read it, but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds you're into reading the T. With all that being said, winning the links to why the violation is legit is going to be way more important to me than harping on the impacts of the T. Sure, impacts are important, but if you're not going to put any effort into proving the T violation than why spend all that time impacting it out.
3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. At some points, I have voted for speed theory and condo (It's been nearly a year, though), although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started, so you are now reading theory). Once again, not that I wouldn't vote on it, but I don't have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that. I will reiterate what has been said about T previously: prove the violation first, then impact out.
4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the years. I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you are reading something really abstract, you are going to have to explain it more to me, but I can catch on pretty fast. K affs have gotten more enjoyable for me as well just make sure it can compete and I will weigh it vs anything.
5. Performance- I am not gonna be your guy for this.
Tayland Ratliff
The Potomac School
None
Joshua Reichert
Petal High School
None
Ashley Reigle
Southern Lehigh
None
Jeffrey Reno
Slinger
None
Nichole Reno
Slinger
None
Leonard Rhoades
Calvert Hall College High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 2:51 AM EDT
I am looking for topicality does the thesis of the affirmative really meet the standards of debate. I also look and see what evidence is being used and if it used effectively and not just some random piece of evidence that is biased. You see their is the subjective and objective facts in each debate. I also look at see when you quote evidence is up to date and plausible to support your thesis. I expect language to be respectful to each other if you are aff or neg. I do not like to use profanity in this educational setting. Do you use your time wisely? Does someone leave two or three minutes left in a rebuttal if so why? Doing crossfire do you answer questions properly or ask probing questions to help you win the debate. I value good speakers and good flow.
Heather Rifkin
Oak Grove HS
None
Jordan Rindenow
Chaminade High School
None
Luis Rivas
Newark Central High School
None
Cindy Robin
Southside High School
None
Kelsey Robins
Convent of the Sacred Heart, NYC
None
Shane Robles
Stuyvesant High School
None
Helton Rodriguez
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Jesse Rodriguez
Seton La Salle High School
None
Natalie Roots-Nowakowski
The Potomac School
Last changed on
Sat May 25, 2024 at 5:42 AM EDT
Hi! I'm currently a freshman at Northwestern University, but did speech and debate for 6 years previously. I started off in Public Forum in 7th grade but primarily focused on speech events (HI, POI, IMP, INFO) for the rest of my career. Notably, I finished my senior year ranked 1st in Virginia and 9th in the nation overall. Regarding PF, I was runner-up in the Silver Tournament of Champions my senior year and quarter-finaled at CATNATS.
How to Win (IMO):
- Give an off-time roadmap if you like, but be sure to sign-post throughout so I know where to flow.
- Speak at whatever speed you want, but please be clear.
- I won’t really be flowing crossfire, so if there is something that is relevant, say it in a speech. Don't be rude, but it's okay to be assertive.
- Collapse on specific arguments and make those voters clear. Extend important arguments through ALL speeches.
- WEIGH
- Tech > truth. Outrageous arguments are fine as long as the link is strong. Explain your logic clearly, and then prove why the impacts are so important. This is especially powerful when accompanied by quantifiable figures.
- For sharing evidence, I'll leave it up to the teams to call out any abuse or mis-cutting. You can create an email chain if you like, but I'm also fine with just links in chat or whatever you all decide is easiest.
- I know progressive debate very loosely, but am not the biggest fan and can't judge it super technically.
- Confidence is key! Show me that you care and have emotions.
In conclusion, THANK YOU for participating in this fantastic activity. I hope you learn something new and, of course, have fun!
Stephanie Rosa
Walton Central High School
None
Jennifer Ross
Syosset High School
Last changed on
Thu February 15, 2024 at 7:04 AM EDT
First time LD Judge
-Clear enunciation and effective communication
-Use typical conversational speed
-No use of jargon
-I will be keeping notes throughout
-I am looking for the side that presents a very clear position that demonstrates its superiority to the opposing side, make your argument very specific ensuring zero deviation from the subject.
-Provide a clear analysis of why you should win in the final summary
Rachel Rothschild
Laurel School
None
Magdalena Roy
Chelmsford High School
None
Nishita Roy
Shrewsbury
None
Jo Ryan
Regis High School
None
Nicholas Ryan
Brigadoon HS
Last changed on
Thu March 14, 2024 at 8:13 AM EDT
Hello, my name is Nicholas Ryan, and I am in my second year of college. I competed for four years in high school in Congressional Debate, along with a few tournaments in World Schools, Extemp, and Impromptu.
General:
Be respectful to everyone. This is meant to be an inclusive community, and any attempts to undermine that will be judged accordingly.
Congress:
Please make this an open and welcoming event. Congress sessions tend to be dominated by a few competitors who seek to demonstrate their skills. I do not judge this to be a skill I will preference in rankings.
Speeches should engage with the previous speeches and contribute to the flow of debate. Referencing other competitors by name is encouraged. I value speeches that manage to uphold the central tenets of their side of debate while contributing new perspectives.
Rehash is not appreciated. Attempts to undermine the tournament rules, particularly regarding the length of the session and format of questioning are discouraged.
If the P.O. keeps digital recency/precedence charts, please share them with me. My email is nicholaslrcolleges@gmail.com.
Public Forum:
I am new to PF, so I probably won't be receptive to circuit PF.
I want to be able to understand what you are saying. If you are talking too fast, I won't be able to keep up. The most important thing is to present your ideas in a clear and precise way. Jumping all over the place means I won't be able to keep track of what you are saying.
I can understand the topic and arguments well, but I am not very familiar with the event.
Sitting or standing is fine with me.
I will time your speeches and prep.
Please share a Google Doc with everyone before the round to share cards. I do not want delays in the rounds while people wait for emails to be sent. I do not want to be on the Google Doc.
Lincoln-Douglass:
I am fairly new to LD. My prior experience with this event is limited to picking up parts from being involved with Speech and Debate.
I will time, but I would encourage you to time the speeches, etc. as well.
Sitting or standing is fine with me.
Brian Sabath
Winter Park High School
None
Eleanor Salchak
McDowell HS
None
Mary Salgado
Olympia HS
None
Jason Samens
Sun Prairie
None
Patrick Sammon
St Thomas Aquinas High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 2:17 PM EDT
**Please add me to the email threads/email chains so I can follow along with the evidence presented: patrick.sammon@aquinas-sta.org
DEBATE:
**Remember that Public Forum Debate is the format of debate that most of the general public can follow and understand.**
I'm a citizen judge who will decide the round on clear, concise arguments from both sides based on the evidence presented. I follow the clock and Regs fully.
Avoid running Kritiks and T. The meat and potatoes of this format of debate is to reach the masses.
Decorum and Behavior: Everyone in the round needs to be respectful and act accordingly. Anything out of acceptable and energetic debate (attacks or backhanded comments on gender, race, etc.), I will throw the round to the other team, end the round, tank your speaks and notify your Coaches.
Spreading: I do not like spreading in PF (or LD). Having the ability to speak at 200 (OR MORE...MANY more) words per minute is a fantastic skill to have, but it doesn't belong in this arena. You are not the famous fast talker John Moschitta, Jr.. You have your Constructive speeches and adequate time to lay out your cases. People (opponents and judges, as well as any spectators in the gallery) need to understand everything you say and the evidence that you reference in order to follow.
During the rounds, please be sure to speak clearly. Be respectful to everyone in the round/on the 'call.' Even though this is a competitive event, we are still in the educational orbit. Use these tournaments as learning experiences and opportunities to further work at your craft.
Last but not least, please have fun and enjoy this experience! GOOD LUCK!
If my judging strategy doesn't match what your team is looking for, please feel free to STRIKE ME. I won't take it personally. Everyone has their tastes and are entitled to them - especially in tournaments where you have say in your judge panels. Take advantage of the benefit! :)
SPEECH:
Remember to relax, have fun and enjoy the experience!
Shane Sandau
Oak Park High School
Last changed on
Tue June 18, 2024 at 4:52 AM CDT
A preponderance of evidence does not win debates.
Speaking at a strategically increased rate of speed is counter to the spirit of an intellectual and equitable debate. Do not speed and spread.
As a point of reference for you argumentation, all three part of the rhetorical triangle should be used in near equal measure: logos, ethos, and pathos. They do not however have to be labeled as such.
Use this email for case email chains: oakparksad@gmail.com
Melanie Sandiha
Marian High School
None
Aimee Sann
Notre Dame Prep.
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:15 AM EDT
Aimee Sann Paradigm
Policy is a fascinating debate format! I love it, and I am still learning it. If I am your judge and you are sending emails, please include me: sanna@notredameprep.com.
1. Be organized. I prefer claims numbered, deliver tags clearly and with emphasis, roadmaps, and signposting. Otherwise, my flow will just fall apart. My flow will be on paper.
2. Lay out your framework clearly and don’t fail to say why you won. In the end, I need to hear what you believe carries the most weight in the round. How you met your burden. How the other side failed to meet theirs.
3. Don’t assume I know all the jargon. I have familiarity with most of it, but explanation matters.
4. Treat statistics with care. If there is clash on them, I will be attentive to your knowledge of how they are collected and how to measure their strength.
5. In Ks, I will be looking for specificity with reference to the AFF’s plan, and I will be listening for your alts.
Edison Sanon
Brigadoon HS
Last changed on
Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:24 PM CDT
Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.
In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.
My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.
In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.
In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.
In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.
LD: I will honestly say the I don't judge LD in the traditional sense and I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.
PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.
I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.
Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.
Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.
I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.
My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.
Carlos Santos
North Central High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:01 PM PDT
My name is Carlos Santos (He/Him/His), I debated in Spokane briefly at Lewis and Clark High School and would consider myself closer to lay than experienced as a judge (though I am learning!). I am the coach for North Central High School and this will be my second year back in the debate circuit. While I am more familiar with traditional debate styles, I am open to progressive debating and do my best to view unfamiliar debate styles impartially.
General: Time limits are to be followed, speaker points are not debatable, self-timing is acceptable.
Policy/LARP – Policy/LARP arguments are fine but avoid contrived scenarios.
K - K aff should be able to provide contextual answers to framework. K affs should have a clear advocacy, whether that be enacted or embodied through performance or advocating a philosophical re-orientation towards/away from the resolution. If you're moving away from the resolution, you need an embedded critique of the resolution - this will give you a large leg up in front of me on the t-framework debate – vague arguments on oppression/racism/capitalism without clear structural analysis and coherent theories of power make it difficult to evaluate within the round.
1 NC K - When using Kritik in the 1NC, you should be able to clearly shift the burden of addressing the underlying issues of the debate to the affirmative. I do not mind at all being asked to consider assumptions I have made regarding the framework of the debate.
Framework: Provide clear structure in framework debate – be sure to elaborate on how I (as the judge) should be interpreting the rules within the round as well as how the round should be judged and provide sound reasoning for this interpretation.
CP – Counterplan should provide a reasonable alternate course of action with a net benefit over the plan – avoid contrived scenarios with unclear net benefits. Your text should be clear in stating your advocacy. Elaborate on how the counterplan is competitive to the plan and provide a net benefit to the counterplan.
DA – disad should operate with a clear link to the plan, please provide evidence and have a clear impact. Because DA impact should be considerable, provide multiple links. Long link chains are acceptable as long as they all relate back to your claim. Impact should be broad and clearly outweigh the affirmative, turn case, or at least nullify the 1AC advantage(s). Impact turns are challenging to do well and inoffensively. Use them only if you are certain it will be effective.
Performance – Performance can be an effective way to communicate narratives that operate outside of the dominant cultural narrative, but make sure the impact is carried beyond the 1AC. Use it as a connection between each part of the round.
T – I have no issue with topicality debates and aff should be prepared to defend against with a clear, delineated counter-interpretation. I am fine with theory debates – just make sure your interpretation is clear and provide a reason for me to give you the ballot or drop the argument
Cade Savoy
Teurlings Catholic High School
Last changed on
Sun January 7, 2024 at 3:40 PM CDT
Hey, I'm Cade (he/him). I debated and did extemp for Teurlings Catholic on the Louisiana and national circuits for four years. Now I compete for LSU (Geaux Tigers!) and occasionally coach/judge for Isidore Newman.
Generally, do what you do best, make smart arguments, be clear, and be unproblematic. Also, I do want to be on the email chain. My email is cadetsavoy@gmail.com.
For Louisiana tournaments/traditional rounds:
I enjoy lay/traditional debate as much as I enjoy circuit debate. Sometimes, though, I find it frustrating. To avoid frustrating me (and to get more speaks and my ballot), I suggest avoiding the following practices:
-- Spending a lot of time on the framework debate when it really doesn't matter. Don't be afraid to concede framework if you think you can weigh your impacts under your opponent's framework. 39 times out of 40, the "value debate" has no weight in my decision-making process. Ask yourself how winning the framework debate affects your overall chances of winning the debate.
-- Not collapsing. Pick one or two arguments and go for them in your final speech. This allows you to develop your central claim much more fully than you otherwise would be able to in a 3-minute 2AR. I promise you will not be able to properly extend all of the offense you read in the constructive in your final rebuttal. Trust.
-- Not having real impacts while reading a consequentialist framework. Your impacts should be a scenario. Try to paint a clear picture of what the world of the aff/neg looks like. Err on the side of over-explaining your impacts. Also, weigh them against your opponent's impacts in terms of probability, magnitude, time frame, etc.
Housekeeping:
1] Post-rounding is good! It promotes education and keeps judges accountable. Feel free to ask me as many questions as you like after my RFD. However, I will be capital p Pissed if your coach comes and fusses at me after the round has already ended — especially if you didn’t ask me questions when you had the opportunity. My only obligation as a judge is to make the best decision I possibly can. Sometimes, those decisions will be flawed. But under no circumstances will I ever be interested in engaging in any flavor of weird national circuit politics.
2] Don't be bigoted. Tech and truth go out the window the second you make a blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise exclusionary argument/remark.
3] For online debate: keep a local recording of your speeches in case someone loses connection. I really don't want to hear a rebuttal re-do.
LD/Policy
I'm putting LD and Policy in the same section because I think most of my relevant thoughts regarding LD and Policy apply to both events. If I have a thought that I think applies to either LD or Policy but not both, I'll flag it as such. Be mad if you feel so inclined.
Run whatever you want. I'll be fine. Still though, there are some arguments that I'm more experienced/better at evaluating than others. Here's a pref shortcut:
1- policy, traditional, stock Ks
2- T, theory, phil, more dense/complex Ks
3/4- tricks (depends on the level of density)
1] An argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on anything that doesn't meet that threshold. I also won't vote on an argument that I can't explain back to your opponent in the RFD, so be clear.
2] Impact framing is really important in every debate, regardless of whether its a standard DA/CP v case debate or a K v K smackdown. I don't see myself connecting the dots for you, so, again, be clear.
--add on: I've found that I'm very reluctant to vote on vague/poorly explained impact scenarios. Err on the side of over-explaining the story of your impacts. I might care about it more than other judges.
3] I think I'm alright at flowing, but I would really appreciate it if you slowed down on tags and analytics, especially when you're reading theory. I'll say "slow!" or "clear!" as much as I need to, so I won't feel bad not voting on an argument because I missed it on my flow.
4] I think I'm fairly neutral in most K aff v T Framework debates, but I'm more receptive to T Framework arguments that leverage education/clash as impact instead of just "pRocEDurAl faIRnEsS." But in these debates, I think the side that paints the clearer picture of what their model of debate looks like typically wins.
5] For LD specifically, I don't understand what it means to defend the resolution but not defend "implementation." "Defending implementation" seems to me to be a logical consequence of fiat.
6] Also for LD specifically, I wish phil debates focused more on the logical syllogism of whatever normative theory is being debated than a bunch of poorly developed reasons to prefer.
7] I have a couple of defaults that dictate how I evaluate the round. They can all be changed with proper argumentation.
- competing interps
- DTA unless it's something that's irreversible like T
- No RVIs
- Epistemic confidence
- No judge kick
- presumption goes to the side whose advocacy deviates least from the squo
- permissibility goes neg
- comparative worlds
8] Debate means different things to different people. Be cognizant of that.
9] Be accessible. In the context of debate, this means not doing things that would jeopardize debate as a site of inclusive, constructive, and critical discussion. I think most people intuitively know what "accessibility" means in debate, but, just in case, I'll outline a few implications of the "accessibility" maxim:
a] Don't be a dick.
b] Don't be shady. Obviously, don't clip cards or falsify evidence. If you do, you'll lose. But also, be forthright about the arguments you're making. Don't act like you don't know what a floating pik is in cross. Don't send a doc with only some analytics (i.e. sending eight out of your nine frontlined responses to T but not the "I meet").
c] If you're debating a novice or a traditional debater, consider reading arguments with which your opponent can substantively engage. I won't penalize you for going for any particular strategy, but your speaks will look better if you make an effort to make the round productive.
PF
All of the stuff from my LD/Policy paradigm apply to PF too. It's worth noting that I only competed in PF like three or four times, so I evaluate PF rounds the exact same way I would a policy-style DA v case debate in LD. I don't see why that would be problematic in any way, but it might be worth considering. Here are some of my PF-specific thoughts.
1] I think a lot of PF teams get away with really lazy extensions. It's not enough to just jump to impact weighing without explaining the link story of the argument you're going for. I won't vote for an argument that isn't properly extended.
2] It irks me when grand cross is dominated by only one debater from each team. I view every speech as a performance, and cross-ex is no exception.
3] PF rants and side quests:
a] Why are evidence ethics in PF so bad? Paraphrasing is stupid. I will give you +.3 speaks if you read highlighted sections of the actual text of what you're referencing. If you're going to paraphrase evidence anyway, put the full text of the card in the doc and highlight the parts that you're referencing. Also, every card you read should include the name of the author(s), the title of the piece, the date on which it was published, and a link/DOI if applicable.
b] Why are email chains in PF so weird? It seems incredibly inefficient to send cards your opponent calls for after the speech has already ended. Just send a complete doc before the speech starts! I will give you +.2 speaks if you send the doc before the speech starts.
Kelly Sawhney
Yarmouth High School
None
Megan Scapin
Slinger
None
Timothy Scheffler
Vel Phillips Memorial
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:14 AM CDT
I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)
I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.
Congress at the bottom.
PF
(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).
If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.
I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.
Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.
I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.
Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.
Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.
Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.
Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.
CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.
If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).
I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.
For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.
A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.
In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:15 PM CDT
I am a high school teacher and a lay judge.
When I'm judging, I appreciate a slower pace; spend more time explaining your thoughts to me instead of trying to cram multiple ideas into a set time limit.
It's important to me that debaters treat each other with respect.
I've had Ks explained to me, but I am not compelled to vote on them.
David Schiavi
Proctor High School
None
Adam Schneider
Slinger
None
Charles Schoenherr
Brigadoon HS
None
Aaron Schopper
McPherson High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:27 AM CDT
I prefer more moderate pace with regards to speaking.
I default policy maker.
I will vote on competitive counterplans, I am on the fence on topical counter plans, I mostly likely will not vote on them unless the theory is sound.
K- I hate generic kritiks. If you are going to run a K, make it have a legitimate link, that weighs against the aff. If I feel like you are running a K because the other team can't answer it (as a game), I won't vote on it.
DA - Huge voter with me.
Theory - Most of the time I hate theory. I feel it is infinitely regressive. Prove abuse if it exists. I hate multiple worlds theory. Strategies should be cohesive.
Topicality - Huge voter for me. Make it legit though. Generic T drives me nuts.
Elizabeth Schwartz
Needham High School
None
Mandy Scott
Madison Central HS
None
Sid Scott
Madison Central HS
None
Quentin Scruggs
Park Vista Community High School
Last changed on
Wed June 19, 2024 at 3:54 PM EDT
Sorry for being really extra about Congress. I just want to make it clear what I think of each speech
Congress
I judge a lot of Congress. Congress to me is half speech and half debate. The best congress students have a mix of both qualities. I find myself in prelim rounds and local tournaments frequently rewarding better speakers because there is a greater talent disparity in those rounds, and kids who are phenomenal speakers break. However, you likely are only reading this if you are a student who takes Congress seriously and expects to get into break rounds. Here’s the thing, once you are in Congress break rounds, everyone is a good speaker and the gap between 1 and 12 is really often negligible to me. Therefore, if you expect to make it into the top 6 and move on, you have to give the appropriate speech at the appropriate time. Here is how I classify different speeches. Each one is judged differently
-
1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship
-
Judged to a higher evidence standard since you are literally setting the table for the entire round
-
Needs exceptional structure and argumentation. This should read like a debate case in PF/LD. No claim should go unwarranted, no argument should lack a variety of strong evidence, the impacts should be clear and heavily emphasized
-
Speech is generally easier since it is prepared in advance, so this speech needs to be very well written
-
1st Neg
-
Same standards as the 1st Aff/Authorship/Sponsorship
-
Difference, you must directly refute what the previous speaker stated. You do not need to refute everything necessarily (although better speakers will), but you should definitely pick out whatever was the key point of their case and directly refute.
-
2nd Aff/2nd Neg-7th Aff/7th Neg (roughly, this depends on chamber size)
-
Speeches need to address what is happening in the chamber. A good rule of thumb is to always address the claims of the speaker who went right before you plus the key issues of the round up to that point. If you are not making the debate unique by refuting previous speakers and extending previous speakers from your side, you will have a tough time being ranked top 6
-
Unique arguments are great and you should draw attention to them. However you are not going to win the debate with a rando argument at the very end with limited impacts. Unique arguments are not a replacement for refutation and extension of previous speakers
-
Closing Affs and Negs (like the last 4 speeches or so)
-
Crystalize/Weigh voting issues. At the end of a cycle of debate, it needs to be like a final focus in PF or a 2AR in LD. Isolate the key issues of the round and explain why your side is winning. Speeches that do not weigh this late in the cycle do not add anything to the debate and are judged as unnecessary.
General Congress Speaking Tips
-
Remember to always use decorum and professionalism
-
Be consistent in the language you use (don’t flip between bill and legislation randomly)
-
Important. At the end of the day, you are acting. You are a legislator, not a high school student. You are a legislator whose personal worth is attached to either the passage or failure of this bill because of how it affects the United States citizens. You delivery and disposition should be that of someone who is desperate to see its passage or failure. Show me this is important to you
Role of Cross Examination
-
I am not paying attention to how many questions you guys ask. I am only really paying attention to the person’s answers. Cross ex should be a time you try to get the opponent to make concessions or show the judges they don’t really know what they are talking about. Be aggressive, but be respectful
-
Ask lots of questions though. I may not be noting it down, but if you ask a lot of questions, I’ll remember that and it can be used to break ranking ties
Evaluating the PO
-
If the PO does the following, I am going to rank them top 3 no matter what
-
Maintains excellent professionalism and decorum
-
Showcases strong knowledge of parliamentary procedure
-
Maintains control of the chamber
-
Makes no mistakes with recency or frequency
-
One more thing to point out. Running an effective chamber also involves encouraging motions in order to continue facilitating legitimate debate. If there are 3 negs in a row with no Aff, and the debate has been done to death - you should be actively asking for motions and reminding the chamber about how we frown on one sided debate and can move on
One final note about Equity
-
It is important to be fair to everyone in the chamber. However, this is a competition. You are trying to destroy your opponents and proceed in the tournament. You have no obligation as competitors to ensure all speakers get to speak the same number of times. Now I will admit, other judges may frown on this - so it is risky behavior. I am just letting you know that I will not take points away because you force a motion to call the previous question and end debate when the debate is clearly over and keep someone from speaking.
- Tabroom will not let me eliminate this stray bullet
LD/PF Paradigm
-
Speed kills. Spread at your own risk.
-
In LD, you need to win the framework to win the debate
-
Case needs to tell a cohesive story. You should not include arguments that don’t function under your framework for the sake of just having extra offense
-
You have to weigh the debate
-
Respect your opponent. Ideally you should be stone faced when your opponent is speaking and never snicker or make any comment of any kind. I’ll drop you
-
Voting issues. Gotta have them. What are the key issues of the round in your view? How do I know what to vote off of if you don't tell me what matters?
- There is no 7, tabroom will not let me backspace
Speaker Points
-
If you are competent and minimize mistakes, you automatically finish with 28.5 speaker points (29 if decimals are forbidden). To improve on that, there need to be zero mistakes, zero arguments that go unrefuted, clear weighing of impact analysis, etc. If you get lower than 28.5, it means you missed something somewhere. I’ll try to put it on the ballot. Overall, if you do your job, you are not finishing with less than 28.5. Going to be honest though, I can't tell you what a 30 is. You have the impress me in some way that I really can't quantify
Patrick Seay
Catholic High
None
FRANCISCO SEGURA
Syosset High School
None
Dana Sevean
DePaul Catholic HS
None
Chhabi Shah
Carrollwood Day School
None
Jigar P Shah
Glenelg High School
None
Pritesh Shah
Ardrey Kell High School
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 11:44 AM EDT
I am relatively new judge with modest experience of judging. I am thrilled to be here today . I will take notes during your speech. Let me know if you need time signals during your speech.
Seemal Shahzadi
Fairview (PA)
None
Brendan Sharp
Marian High School
None
Pam Sheldon
Bancroft
None
Eric Shen
Pine View School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 8:31 AM EDT
Hello there, I am a parent judge supporting my son's speech aspirations and leadership development.
- I would appreciate if you can speak clearly, do not speed.
- I read broadly about economics, geopolitics and technologies on a regularly basis, please make sure your points discussed and delivered clearly.
- Please do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, eye-rolling, head shaking is not acceptable. Please be respectful to all the judges, volunteers and other students you are competing with.
Over all, do your best, have fun, you will be a winner just by competing. Thank you and Good Luck!
Curtis Shephard
Maize High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:19 PM CDT
Curtis Shephard
Email Chain - cshephard@usd266.com
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be
Oh, I'm the cult of personality
It's all about the game and how you play it.
All about control and if you can take it.
All about your debt and if you can pay it.
It's all about pain and who's gonna make it.
You've got your rules and your religion
All designed to keep you safe
But when rules start getting broken
You start questioning your faith
I have a voice that is my savior
Hates to love and loves to hate
I have the voice that has the knowledge
And the power to rule your fate
Um, it's gon' be, what it's gon' be
Five pounds of courage buddy, base tan pants with a gold tee
Ugh, it's a war dance and victory step
Of all stances, a gift and you insist it's my rep
I am cold like December snow
I have carved out this soul made of stone
And I will drag you down and sell you out
Embraced by the darkness, I'm losing the light
Encircled by demons, I fight What have I become, now that I've betrayed
Everyone I've ever loved, I pushed them all away
And I have been a slave to the Judas in my mind
Is there something left for me to save
In the wreckage of my life, my life
The Dr. will see you now
Gretchen Sheridan
Our Lady of the Sacred Heart High School
None
Taylor Shinaberry
Our Lady of Good Counsel
None
Austin Shively
Shawnee Mission East High School
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:27 AM CDT
Last Updated: November 2023
Speech and Debate at Olathe Northwest High School for 4 years (2014-2018)
Speech and Debate Team at Texas Christian University (2019-2021)
Email me with further questions, or just ask in the room: austin.shively@tcu.edu
POLICY DEBATE
* Put me on the email chain
* Racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose my ballot
* Disclosure Theory: I'm not going to vote on it. Debate is an activity in critical thinking - you should be able to provide argumentation on your opponents claims whether you know their case ahead of time or you find it out in the 1AC.
*Speed:Just make sure I’m on the email chain or SpeechDrop, and that analytical arguments are clear.
*Topicality: If you genuinely think there is a violation of the resolution, go for it! Otherwise, I promise you I'm not going to be sad if I don't hear a T argument. I default to competing interpretations, but I'll accept reasonability if it's uncontested. T debates are all about the standards for me - make sure there is clash. Just because their block says "____ Good" and yours says "____ Bad," that doesn't mean you've refuted your opponents claims. Specificity and actual engagement is how you win on T.
*Theory/Framework: If you feel that a theory argument is a reason to reject a team, be very thorough in your explanation. For framework, really detail why your framework is better than your opponent's.
*DA's: I'll listen to anything. I understand the need for generic DAs, but specific links are always preferred. All DA debates should include discussions of uniqueness, links, and impacts. Strongly against terminal impacts unless you can provide a very, very realistic link story. Impact turns are always great if you can explain it.
*K's: I'm not well-versed in most of the K literature that's out there. I'm open to hearing a K if you are confident that you understand it and can explain it in detail to me. Keep it real, and explain why the K is important. Again, I'm not going to be sad if you don't run a K.
*CP's: Any CP is an acceptable CP if you can effectively prove how it solves the aff. Aff - creative perms or doesn't solve arguments are your best bet. Negative - Advantage CPs are fun.
*Other Notes: Open cross is fine if you can keep it civil. The more "real-world" you can make the debate, the better. Explanations are the key to winning - I care more about how YOU are debating, and what analysis YOU can provide. Simply reading tags, cards, and pre-made blocks will not win you the round.
...
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
* Direct clash is very important to this event. Reference other speakers and analyze the pros/cons of what they are saying.
* If you repeat a pro or con point that is very similar to another speaker, make it meaningful and add something new to the argument. Additionally, explain why the addition you made was necessary/important to recognize.
*Presiding over a chamber is just as important as giving speeches. A nearly flawless PO, who is confident in their rulings, is one of the most impressive things in student Congress.
* Act like you're in congress. That's what the event is for. "At my school" claims and high school jokes are only going to hurt your ranking. Be creative and fun, in a professional matter, and you'll be happy with the results.
*Discrimination or bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated.
Lisa Sigler
Potomac Falls High School
None
Alexandra Sills
Bishop Kenny High School
None
Matthew Sills
Bishop Kenny High School
Last changed on
Sat May 25, 2024 at 3:55 AM EDT
IE.
LD.
My professional background is philosophy and theology. I prefer a discussion of the ideas and principles in the resolution, with evidence used primarily to ground these ideas and illustrate if application of the resolution and achievement of the values presented are possible — i.e., avoiding the ivory tower; however some resolutions do allow more theoretical or purely conceptual debates (and it is your job to set the frame).
Assuming parity of skill and equal preparation between debaters in a round, I will prefer: topicality, values, logic and argumentation, rhetoric, and evidence - in that order.
Preferences aside, I will do my best to judge you fairly based upon the case you present and your skill as a debater so that the best overall debater in a round wins. There are many strategies and styles that can with within NCFL rules and the traditional Lincoln-Douglas style. I promise you that you can gain a winning vote with a case that doesn’t match my preferences; however, a superior debater should be able to adapt aspects of his or her case or its presentation to account for judge paradigms.
Emmett Simmons
Shadle Park High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:15 AM PDT
I did debate in high school and have been judging for a few years.
Things I like to see in a round:
Good clash--please do not just restate your evidence when it conflicts with your opponent's; tell me why your evidence is better, that is, more comprehensive, more recent, the reasoning is better or more intuitive, etc.
Aggressive CX--do not be rude and please do not talk over each other. Having said that, I like a hard line of questioning, getting to the heart of arguments, and getting an opponent to state their position and follow those positions to their natural conclusions. I do not flow CX, but there are plenty of rounds where the winning argument is developed from something that comes up in CX, if you want me to flow something that comes up, mention it in your next speech
Unique arguments/framework--I will hear out any argument you want to run if you have evidence supporting it and can make a coherent rational argument for it. I do not care if you want to run a funky framework, if your opponent runs an abusive framework, don't just tell me it's abusive, explain why and why that abuse is bad for the debate or the discussion of the issues.
Pet Peeves
Formalistic arguments about PF rules-- I am not a rule stickler, and I frankly do not care about running what might technically be considered a plan or counterplan. The point of debate is to improve rhetorical skills and learn about relevant topics. Neither of those goals is hurt by stating a specific course of action in regard to the topic or proposing an alternative answer to the one suggested by the topic. Public Forum is not Policy or LD, so I don't really care to see a formal plan, counterplan, pic, etc. run like you would in another form of debate. However, the conceptual ideas behind them absolutely belong in Public Forum debate. Giving me a general idea of how the topic would be implemented, or a mutually exclusive alternative course of action to the topic, etc. is encouraged. It makes the debate better by forcing teams to expand the scope of the arguments, be more rhetorically elastic, and make the debate more interesting generally. However, there are things that teams can do which are bad for the debate itself or do not advance an understanding of the topic. In those cases I want the opposing team to point out the abusive/unproductive tactic being used by the other team and explain why it is bad for the quality of the debate or for education of the topic. If you make that case I am happy to flow that argument as a turn for your side. Also I do reserve the right to drop the argument, whether or not the other team brings it up, if it both contradicts the overarching goals of debate and is in violation of a public forum rule.
Giving time signals--I am terrible at remembering to give time signals. This is totally my fault, but I think it is only fair to give a fair warning. If you really really need me to give time signals I will do my best, but I strongly encourage you to time yourselves.
Not Giving Voters--PLEASE GIVE VOTERS! I don't want you to cover the flow the last speech. Pick the couple of issues that win you the round and explain why these issues are the most important to the debate and why you win them.
Dilmeet Singh
Apex Friendship High School
None
Debby Sisk
Lake Buena Vista High School
None
Matt Smeltzer
Mercer High School
None
Alex Smith
Benilde-St Margaret's School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:46 AM CDT
Speed is fine (but must be crystal clear for high speaks), jargon is fine. Whatever you put on the flow I will evaluate but prefer evidence to analytics.
I have judged for 10+years on the local Minnesota circuit and competed in LD before that. My knowledge of specific higher level national circuit strategies is limited as I haven't judged many national circuit rounds but I am confident that I can follow as long as you keep the round clear.
Please add me to any email chains: alsmit6512@gmail.com
If you have specific questions, feel free to ask before the round.
Rachel Smith
Kickapoo High School
None
Thadeus Smith
American Heritage Broward HS
Last changed on
Sun March 10, 2024 at 8:03 AM EDT
TL;DR
-
Be kind in all that you do.
-
I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.
-
I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.
-
I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.
-
Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.
-
Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.
- For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com
Background
I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.
I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!
Evidence ethics
I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.
Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.
Public Forum
I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.
Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.
Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.
Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.
Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.
Lincoln-Douglas
I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.
Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.
I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.
"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.
Congress
If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:
- Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
- Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
- Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
- Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
- Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
- At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.
World Schools
The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.
Theory
I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.
I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.
Kritiks
Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.
Death Good/Oppression Good
"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.
"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.
Dave Souza
Granite Bay High School
None
Frank Sowell
Petal High School
None
Robert Speer
Upper St Clair High School
None
Carl Stafford
University Academy
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 12:15 PM CDT
Debate:
- I would like to see:
- Money saved
- lives saved
- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers
- Not a huge fan of spreading
- I love seeing new ideas
- Love seeing on case attacks as well
IE Forensics:
- I'm looking for the following
- Your own interpretation of the literature
-Good Memorization
- Understanding of the character
- Understanding of the entire literally selection
- Good characterization
- Projection
Phillip Steenbekkers
Slinger
None
Vance Stegman
McPherson High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 3:51 AM CDT
Pronouns: he/his
stegman76@gmail.com
I used to coach at a 2A high school in Kansas. I'm a stock issue as well as policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.
Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.
Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.
Topicality is super important; however, I hate T arguments that are just there to fill time.
CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.
Kritiks are something I'm not super comfortable judging well. I've only seen them run once or twice...by novices at the beginning of their debate career. I'm not opposed to them, but don't feel I could accurately gauge if a K is run well or not.
Don't just read evidence and leave it at that - analyze, analyze, analyze!
I prefer moderate contest speed. Not a super big fan of spreading.
I flow. Please keep your speech organized.
KatyAnn Stenner
McPherson High School
Last changed on
Wed January 24, 2024 at 11:35 AM EDT
Email: katherineastenner@gmail.com
**Please include me in the email chain, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding my comments**
Hey y’all!
My name is Katy, and I go by any pronouns. I debated Lincoln- Douglas all four years of highschool and am currently the assistant coach for Clover Hill High School. My senior year, I was first in the state of Virginia for VCFL and third in the state for VHSL. I also went to out-rounds at CFL Grand Nationals and NSDA Nationals. As far as judging goes, I’m really only familiar with Lincoln-Douglas, so I will put my preferences for that. If you are PF or Policy, there may be something you can use in there, but feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.
I was a traditional debater and am a traditional judge. I don’t mind counterplans, but I dislike a lot of “progressive tricks” because I feel like they undermine the educational value of debate. For that reason, you’re better off sticking to a more traditional style with me. I won’t automatically vote you down if you run progressive arguments, but you won’t exactly endear yourself to me by doing so. Also, if you do decide to run theory, please explain your arguments. Don’t just throw out terms and expect me to know them. Above all, DO NOT SPREAD! I’m fine with speed, but spreading is a major pet peeve of mine, so just... don’t.
Disclosure Theory: I personally am not a fan of disclosure theory, but I will not automatically drop it or you unless you are running it unethically. For example, if your opponent is not spreading, running a traditional case, and is not even from a school that is on the wiki, do not run disclosure theory. If you want disclosure because it makes debate more fair, then weaponizing it against traditional schools with less resources negates that. If you want disclosure to make the discussion more educational, then spending half your speech debating disclosure does not achieve that. Run it at your own risk, but you have an uphill battle getting me to vote for it.
Regardless of whether you are traditional or progressive, I love to see good weighing and impact calculus in round. Explicitly state why your arguments matter and how they flow into framework; don’t just assume I know what you’re going for. The easier you make the weighing for me in the round, the better off you are when it comes time for me to cast my ballot.
BIGGEST PET PEEVE: My biggest pet peeve for debate is when people link climate change, nuclear war, or terrorism to topics that really have nothing to do with them. If the impact is topical, by all means run it, but do not jump through 15 links in order to get an extinction level impact just for the sake of winning on magnitude. The burden of proof is high for me with these three impacts because I'm tired of seeing them run for every topic regardless of whether it makes sense.
I am a big proponent of diversity in debate, which means being conscious of what arguments you run and how you interact with other debaters. If you run any type of discriminatory argument , like “racism/ sexism/ ableism good”, I will drop you. If you intentionally mis-gender your opponent or use a slur against a community you are not a part of, I will drop you and tank your speaks. Please use trigger warnings at the start of the round if you are running a sensitive argument and leave unnecessary inflammatory/ graphic cards out of your speeches.
Finally, be conscious of what arguments you are running and how they impact the communities affected by them. If you are not black, I don’t think you should be running radical black authors, like Afropessimism/ Black Nationalism. Same goes for male debaters running radical feminist kritiks. It will be very obvious whether you are running these arguments because you care about them versus if you are running them because you think they will be hard for your opponent to refute. What you say matters in and outside of round, so please be considerate and kind!
TL;DR: I’m a traditional LD judge who dislikes spreading and disclosure theory. Please impact your arguments and be considerate of your opponents. Also, do not run an extinction level impact with a sketchy link just to win on magnitude.
Sue Stephens
Cimarron High School
None
Cara Stewart
Ardrey Kell High School
None
Meg Stewart
Purvis High School
None
Gwen Stoll
Huntington High School
None
Cathy Strate
Southeast
None
Harry Strong
The Potomac School
Last changed on
Thu April 18, 2024 at 6:08 AM EDT
Mostly a flow judge who appreciates, in cross, civility, clear questions, and direct answers to said questions—experienced in Worlds, PF, LD and Congress. Speak clearly; don't play stupid evidence games. I'm not into K's or attempting to win a round on things not topical to the round. Sometimes in PF I won't flow all the way through focusing more on who wins the offense of the round.=
Congress specific: Advance arguments, challenge one another and know procedure. I will vote up great POs, great congressional-style speakers, and those who are functioning in debate mode (not just speech mode).
Kyle Summerall
Pascagoula High School
None
Logan Swafford
Shawnee Mission West High School
Last changed on
Sat April 20, 2024 at 11:58 AM CDT
Email: debate.swafford@gmail.com
Experience: Competed in HS (policy debate only), current Shawnee Mission West Speech and Debate assistant coach
Pronouns: He/Him
Non-Policy Notes:
LD: I'm open to just about anything in LD, but I do tend to expect a traditional values debate. If you want to get real philosophical or fun with it, that's fine, just explain your stuff. See if you can glean anything from my policy notes, but as long as you aren't a jerk you're going to be fine. I will always view high school debate as an educational activity - this means I value good, proper argumentation over everything. The basis or motivation of that argumentation is totally up to you.
PF: I straight up just weigh contentions. My ballot will list my decision on each contention and how much I weigh it in the context of the round. Fully winning a single impactful contention will sway my vote more than winning a bunch of less important ones. I don't love having more than 2 or 3 contentions, less is always more. Please don't be chaotic during grand crossfire, some of y'all need to chill.
Policy Notes:
Don't be rude or condescending to me or your opponent. Don't use problematic language. Be nice, have fun, live, laugh, love.
I fundamentally believe this to be an educational activity more than a competitive one, so I tend to lean truth over tech. I'm big on communication skills and proper argumentation. Logical fallacies, bad-faith arguments, lack of warrants, and blatant misuse of data or statistics (I teach math) make me sad. I will almost always prioritize probability when weighing impacts. Clear analysis is key. I always follow along in docs, but will not be doing any additional reading - I've gotten more and more comfortable doing less and less work in a round.
I'm fine with speed (like 7/10) with appropriate signposting and a clear structure. If you spread through absolutely everything and I can't reasonably comprehend something, I won't vote on it. Judge instruction and having good rebuttals can help cover you. I'm not the judge for you if you're just trying to win by out-speeding your opponent. That's boring and, in my opinion, antithetical to the point of the activity. I'm also not the best judge for a highly technical round - I don't have a lot of high level varsity experience and can struggle with processing all the jargon when going fast (think closer to 5/10 on speed for heavy theory). I find theory debates boring at best and inscrutable at worst. The team that can actually explain why I should care (in plain language) will get my ballot. Other than that, I really don't have any opinion or preference on what you run.
Assume I know nothing when reading philosophy, because I likely know very little about whoever you are talking about. I'm comfortable with most standard kritiks, but I don't read (or generally care) about philosophy, so you'll need to help me out there. I do enjoy a good K debate. You do you! All this said, don't be performative. Really think about what you are saying. Running a K just to win a debate is, oftentimes, high-key problematic.
Things I find annoying:
- Wasting time with tech issues (speech drop, email, computer, etc.); always have a back-up plan. In the words of the poet T.A. Swift, "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."
- Interrupting your opponent during cross ex and then later saying they didn't answer your question.
- Overuse of jargon or abbreviations. Until something is clearly established in a round, I don't want to hear a slang term. Be better communicators.
- No attempt to offer a roadmap, signposts, or any semblance of structure to your speeches.
- Just reading card after card after card without actually saying anything substantive.
- No clash in a round. What are we even doing here?
- Bad rebuttals. At least outline why I should vote for you. I'm lazy, write my RFD for me. Give me some specific cards I should reference in my decision.
- Stealing prep time. You can't "stop prep" and then spend 5 minutes uploading a document. If you are truly that bad at technology, you need to go old school and be a paper debater.
- Don't roll your eyes at the other team, that's such an unnecessarily mean thing to do and being mean is loser behavior.
- Extinction/nuke war outweighing on magnitude is nothing if you can't definitively prove probability. It's hard to do that, of course, so maybe you should all stop escalating everything all of the time and have a reasonable debate instead.
- One thing I think about a lot: all you varsity kids spend so much time pouring over each other's stuff, you can't get upset at judges who miss something when we only get ONE shot to follow arguments live. Debate isn't my life and I'm going to miss stuff. I promise you I will give you my full attention, but you have to have realistic expectations.
- Asking for feedback from me after a round; it'll be on the ballot. (I need time to process my thoughts and don't want to say something mean/unhelpful to you on the spot). If I feel like there is something necessary to immediately share, I will. I will usually update my RFD/notes throughout the tournament, so check back at the end for the most detailed feedback. (Note: if the tournament is doing verbal RFD's, feel free to ask questions, don't expect eloquent answers though.)
- Trying to shake my hand (I'm sure you're nice, but, gross).
TL/DR:
- be nice, truth over tech, clear analytics, explain your kritiks, rebuttals are key, don't shake my hand
Phoenix Swedlund
Asheville High School
None
Ameenuddin Syed
Pennsbury High School
Last changed on
Sun March 3, 2024 at 3:51 PM EDT
Hi, I've been judging for around a year now.
I will judge you based on what I can understand; please please please NO spreading.
I enjoy well thought out questions which really make your opponent's wonder.
I will not tolerate any sort of disrespect, be it to the audience or any of your opponents.
When your opponent is speaking, please make sure you are actually listening to them and not mocking or interrupting them in any sort of way.
My topmost criteria, in judging is:
- defending your argument during questioning.
- Good delivery of your speech.
Remember to enjoy yourself and have fun! :)
Cort Sylvester
Rosemount Sr High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:51 AM CDT
Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.
I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)
I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).
I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.
I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.
T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.
Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.
Some LD-specific stuff:
Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.
LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.
I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.
Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.
Giselle Tadros
Ridge High School
None
Gwennetta Tatum
St. Andrew's Episcopal School
None
Terry Taylor
Fox Chapel Area High School
None
Violetta Terpeluk
Granite Bay High School
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 8:49 AM PDT
I'm a parent who used to debate in college many many years ago. I've been judging in high school tournaments for the past 3 years. I prefer plain language, good logics, appropriate speed, so I can follow your arguments. I do take notes at high level. I value argument over style. I use criteria specific to the event. I find logical arguments with sound evidence most persuasive. I also value debaters' professionalism.
Puluna Thakkar-Shelat
Marriotts Ridge High School
None
Jayashree Thorat
Perkiomen Valley High School
None
Amoligha Timma
Eden Prairie High School
None
Lydia Timmins
Newark Charter School
Last changed on
Sat March 23, 2024 at 4:09 AM EDT
I value organization and clarity--in speaking and in debating. Numbering your theses or points you are making helps me and the rest of the teams to understand your point. I know you have a lot to say, but make sure you are speaking at a conversational pace. If you speak very quickly, you might stumble over your words and thoughts, so be thoughtful about what you want to say and don't jam in every single possible argument.
Dean Tognoni
Cardinal Newman High School
None
Adam Topliff
Wamego High School
None
Erika Trahan
Kaplan High School
None
Shannon Travis
Madison Central HS
None
Camilla Trimberger
Sheboygan South High School
None
Melenie Troncoso
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Norberto Troncoso
Democracy Prep Bronx Prep
None
Tanika Tugwell-DiGiovanni
St. Joseph's Prep
None
Elyce Turnipseed
Bolivar High School
Last changed on
Tue May 14, 2024 at 5:05 AM CDT
First and foremost, be a good human being. Give this performance the best you can give and at the end of the day, have fun. Respect is important and should be given to everyone. Bring your A game!
Joyce Turnipseed
Bolivar High School
None
Rachel Underweiser
Scarsdale High School
None
Anandhi Upendran
Columbia-Hickman High School
None
Kylee Utt
Maize High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 5:37 AM CDT
Cliff notes: I am a closeted K-Hack (meaning they aren’t my fav, but a well poised one is nice) posing as a policy maker. On that note, spreading for the purpose of outspreading the other team is no different than word vomit. I am okay with speed if args (and your tags) are EXTREMELY clear and well developed, I am not okay with speed when it is solely for out-reading the other team. Tell me where to flow, how to vote, and why it is important. If you’re going so fast I can’t flow, I won’t.
For Email chains: kutt@usd266.com, however, I prefer the tabroom created doc drops to keep rounds moving. It wastes so much time waiting for emails.
PSA: Preflow means you flow before you get into round. I should not have to wait to start the round because you need to flow your own case. Even in PFD. You should have several preflowed copies of your pro and con cases so you're prepared for either side.
Dale Uttke
Port Washington
None
Shelly Uttke
Port Washington
None
George Utz
Starkville High School
None
Kathleen Vaeth
Webster Schroeder
None
LaShonda Valentine
Sumner Academy of Arts and Science
None
Genevieve Vallentine
Marshfield HS
None
Seth VanEyck
Ferris High School
Last changed on
Fri March 15, 2024 at 12:45 AM PDT
I am retired United States Army. This is my first year judging debate, but I have recently completed the NFHS debate judge course and am nationally certified. I prefer sound logical contentions and discourse that is backed up by fact. I expect all debaters to treat each other with courtesy and respect. All speaking should be directed at me, and I would also prefer the debaters to stand when speaking.
Trisch Vessar
Platte County High School
Last changed on
Wed June 19, 2024 at 4:08 AM CDT
LD and PF: Although I have been coaching for many years, in terms of debate, I still consider myself a lay judge (with judging experience). I am open to different (non-traditional) arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe we are debating the resolution, not trying to fix society, at least not during this competition round. (I have faith that many of you will do that as you continue through life!)
In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 90 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 55 is better. If I can’t understand you, I can’t follow, flow, or judge effectively.
Congress: As a scorer, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions, and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.
Lydia Voss
Apple Valley High School
None
Scott Voss
Apple Valley High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:07 PM CDT
Experience:
I am a long time debate and speech coach at Apple Valley High School in Minnesota, going back to the early '90s. I have coached both LD and PF and was there for the birth of Ted Turner (now PF Debate). I continue to stay involved in both. I have a PhD in Educational Research, which means that I have quite a bit of background and training in research and evidence. I place a high value on credible evidence and the sources that produce it.
Judging Theory:
I like debates with interesting and unique arguments. But with that said, I also like to have clear links between the warrants, claims, and evidence. I don't mind theory, and I don't mind speed, but I also want to be sure that I can follow your arguments. Please slow down and emphasize outlines and tags.
My speaker point scale starts at 27. Anything below that is poor execution of strategy. And anything below a 26 is an indicator of someone saying something pretty offensive. Debate hard, but be thoughtful and considerate of one another.
Tzitel Voss
Apple Valley High School
None
Alexis Wajda
Horizon High School
None
Evelyn Wang
Southern Lehigh
None
Joenima Wani
Bardstown High School
None
Mary Kay Waterman
The Lovett School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:15 AM EDT
I coach PF Debate and have judged LD for 15+ years. I love to see professionalism, real logic in cases and rebuttals, impeccable speaking skills, and good time management. Please avoid barraging me with questions about my expertise before the round starts.
“Off-time road maps” serve no purpose. Framework and observations are not just for show; I weigh them throughout the round. Spreading does not belong in PF or LD, and I will not flow arguments that I cannot hear.
Good argumentation matters the most to me. I should hear incisive warrants to support all claims. Your impacts should be specific and resonate throughout your contentions. Good debaters achieve turns and can group arguments well.
In regard to PF:
Summary speeches should, above all, situate the round and extend the rebuttal.
Try not to turn the round into just an “evidence-off”. Know when to move on from a dispute over one piece of evidence.
In the Final Focus, you must weigh arguments with specificity and effective persuasion, but the focus should be on the holistic argument and impacts, not line-by-line analysis at that point.
I don't give long-winded verbal feedback at the end of rounds, but I try to give an abundance of ballot comments for your benefit.
Denise Watkins
Rowan County Sr High School
None
Jennifer Wautlet
Oshkosh West High School
None
David Eric Weatherly
Murray High School
None
Kyle Weaver
Loyola Blakefield
None
Lonn Weissblum
American Heritage Palm Beach HS
None
Aaron West
Graves County High School
None
Sara Westbrook
Mercy High School
None
Kristen Wick
Jefferson City High School
Last changed on
Thu June 20, 2024 at 3:14 AM CDT
I have been coaching speech and debate at Jefferson City High School for several years, where I bring a passion for communication and critical thinking to my students. As the lead Biology and Biomedical Sciences teacher. I leverage my background in Biological Oceanography from the University of San Diego, and also hold a Masters in Education of Curriculum and Instruction from Texas A&M University to inspire and educate the next generation of scientists and thinkers. I approach rounds with a focus on clarity, organization, and substance.
Here's what you can expect from me as a judge:
I appreciate well-structured speeches with clear roadmapping. A clear introduction outlining the main points to be covered, followed by organized content with smooth transitions, is crucial. I value clarity over speed, so avoid spreading or speaking too quickly, as it can hinder comprehension and detract from the quality of your argumentation. Depth of analysis and substance in cosntruction are essential. I appreciate well-researched and supported points that demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic. While persuasion is important, I prioritize the quality of evidence and the coherence of reasoning over flashy rhetoric.
Maintain professionalism and respect throughout the round. Adherence to tournament rules and decorum is expected.
I strive to provide constructive feedback that highlights both strengths and areas for improvement. Take my comments as opportunities for growth and learning in your debate journey. My goal is to reward speakers who can educate and engage their audience while demonstrating a mastery of the art of extemporaneous speaking.
Grace Wigington
Bishop Moore Catholic High School
Last changed on
Tue March 19, 2024 at 1:32 PM EDT
❧You're In A Rush -- The Most Important Thing ☙
ㅤ
⦿ Congress: Conversational speaking speed, eye-contact, define jargon, sources have author + year at minimum, focus on cause and effect to outline concepts, accessibility both in physical and verbal delivery (clarity/understandability), call out cheaters, and be kind!
❧ OVERVIEW☙
I, as a judge, aim to give the type of thorough ballots that I enjoyed getting as a competitor, so please understand that I usually give more 'grows' than 'glows' as they say. Make no mistake, I am more than proud of each and every one of you. Getting up in front of people and speaking your mind is perfect for growth in all aspects, full stop.
Speech and debate is, to me, a glowing example of practice and skill becoming one. With this in mind, there are many trade practices that better allow accessibility, enthusiasm, and knowledge to rise to the top. I abide by these best practices.
The following points will outline my paradigm for Student Congress.
❧ ON DISHONESTY☙
No one person can know everything, and I believe that any person off the street ought to be able to understand and have faith in the speakers of any event. To mislead or bring forward fraudulent/ plagiarized claims and evidence is not acceptable, and I rely on you to ensure we can have a productive, respectful, and truthful round by ensuring nobody profits from dishonesty.
→ If there are instances of cheating or misinformation, then do not hesitate to call it out!
❧ THE DETAILS☙
⦿ To Our Lovely PO's
Since each chamber always needs a PO, and you stepped up to take that role, we appreciate you! Thus, PO's, in my mind, start at the top and will be knocked down by how much they mess up or lose control of the chamber.
→ Assert and maintain control over the chamber at all times.
→ Demonstrate mastery of PO's duties and obligations.
→ If you won the position via vote, then expectations will be higher since you have asserted yourself as the best choice.
THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:
‣ Keeping track of how many questions each speaker has asked.
‣ Disallowing excessive or abusive recesses.
‣ Ensuring decorum and rule expectations are followed for all competitors.
‣ Quick and accurate recency and precedence calculations.
‣ Gavel procedure.
⦿ Speeches
Delivery is one of the most important factors to me; be sure to speak at a pace and volume that may be understood by any person no matter the circumstances.
→ If I can't understand you due to your excessively high or low speed, your reliance on filler words like 'um', or your volume inconsistency then I can't follow your content. To me, delivery and content go hand in hand when it comes to audience accessibility. I will always comment on your delivery for that reason.
→ Redundancy happens to the best of us, and if you're a novice with a prepared speech that has already been covered in the chamber then by all means please still give it! That said, for experienced varsity or during high level competition/ tournaments, I expect adaptation or recontextualization to bring a fresh perspective to the table.
→ Physicality should be purposeful, and not become repetitive, distracting, or background-noise.
→ Non-invasive humor is always appreciated, but flattery will get you nowhere!
→ Content should be explained and guided by context and, preferably, real examples.
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES WILL BE WEIGHTED LESS IF THEY ARE:
‣ Misleading or vague.
‣ Non-applicable to the bill or argument made.
‣ Appearing like an un-cited source due to hyper-specific details.
⦿ Cross-Examination and Questioning
I use cross-ex as a speaker's last chance to prove themselves in the event they are between speech scores. A tie breaker, essentially.
→ If two speakers give equally scored speeches and there must be a tie breaker then the speaker with more questions asked during cross-ex will win out due to their demonstrated confidence on and understanding of the various topics.
‣ BUT, if a question is redundant, grossly off-topic, or sets up an argument not already in play (like bringing up arguments you plan to introduce in your own upcoming speech) then it will count against the tie breaker since it is not indicative of a fruitful chamber.
IF, during cross-ex:
‣ The speaker defends their speech and demonstrates mastery: scoring will be rounded up.
‣ The speaker is disproven and they cannot adequately refute: scoring will be rounded down.
⦿ Decorum
"Be good, be kind, be talented!" -Brian McAninch
→ Know and operate under the rules and expectations of the chamber.
→ Do not abuse recesses or exiting of the chamber.
→ When addressing a fellow competitor during a speech or cross-ex please refer to them by their proper title. It's all an act at the end of the day, so take the stage with pride.
→ Remember that you are debating the argument and NOT the person!
❧ GOOD LUCK, COMPETITOR!☙
Jen Wilder
Boone County High School
None
Jessica Wilkinson
Pascagoula High School
None
Joan Williams
Ursuline High School
None
Katie Williams
Asheville High School
Last changed on
Thu April 11, 2024 at 10:39 AM EDT
Normally an LD judge so I can be a little analytical in my approach to speech events. I value clean diction, clear distinction between characters if applicable (voices, position etc) and a clear link to the topic/subject.
Linda Williams
Germantown High School
None
Jerrad Willis
McPherson High School
Last changed on
Thu January 11, 2024 at 7:50 AM CDT
Experience
4-year policy debater/forensian @ Lansing HS (light congress) 2001-2005
4-year assistant debate/forensics @ Lansing HS 2006-2011
7 years head coaching debate/forensics (1 Leavenworth 2010-2011, 5 Salina-Sacred Heart 2012-2018, 1 Hutchinson 2018-2019)
4 years assistant debate/forensics @ McPherson HS 2020-pres
Policy:
I like T that links, DAs and affirmative advantages should have real-world feasible impacts, and I am only in favor of K debate if the framework has equal ground for both teams to earn a ballot (don't run K's that are impossible for the aff to meet the alt). CPs must be competitive to be viable. Tell me why you win and what to vote for.
I believe the negative has to have a coherent position. I don't buy the "multiple worlds" theory of negative debate.
I am fine with open CX, but I am immensely against open speeches. Never feed your colleague lines in a speech. I don't care if they parrot your words exactly, it is not your speech to give.
LD:
I like deep discussions on interactions between the value and its criterion, especially when values and criterion are cross-applied between competing sides. I see LD as competing frameworks and will prefer the debater that does a better job framing the resolution in terms of the value and its criterion (or criteria).
PFD:
I have no idea how this format works. I will vote on the team that gives the most compelling reasons to prefer.
Dave Winkler
Wrightstown High School
None
Anita Wokhlu
Buchholz High School
None
Tara Wolckenhauer
Villa Walsh Academy
None
Erin Wolf
Upper St Clair High School
None
Neil Wolf
Munster High School
Last changed on
Wed May 22, 2024 at 5:28 PM EDT
My email is gencounselwolf@gmail.com. Please make certain to include me in the email chain.
After four years of high school debate, I participated in one full season of debate at the University of Michigan, and reached the Quarter-final round at NDT (the first Michigan team to reach the Elimination bracket at NDT).
The judging paradigm I apply is to assume authority as a Policymaker and view the debate (logic, reasoning, evidence, and persuasive appeal of arguments) through the lens of real-world settings. Examples are a federal district court judge serving as the fact-finder at trial, an executive agency staffer briefing a senior diplomatic official, and a general counsel advising a university board of trustees (this last role is one I have fulfilled).
The stock issues - Harm, Significance and Inherency - collectively constitute the principal methodology through which I evaluate the clash of arguments. I emphatically disfavor K arguments and approaches and only very rarely will I decide a debate on the basis of so-called extinction-level impacts.
Generally I prefer substantive argumentation and teams who crystalize a given debate down to a few major issues as to which significant clash has taken place. Performative presentations and arguments may be acceptable but they need to join issue in some major way and crystalize the debate down to a few major areas of clash.
As a general matter I am more persuaded, or at least capable of being persuaded, by arguments which are situated within acknowledged principal schools of sociological, political, or economic thought in those disciplines. While I do not expect any debater at any level of interscholastic competition to proceed upon methodology which would be acceptable in framing the research question in a graduate law program, I am alert to “fuzzy thinking”.
Relative to my own practice development and academic initiatives, I do not expect debaters to be current with sophisticated or advanced understanding of issues, matters or developments in Public and Private International Air (Aviation) Law or Space Law. But broad or even significant misstatements of the law in these areas very likely will provoke unfavorable decisions on arguments and overall.
Cards not shared fully or not read timely in the round will not be considered. Post-rounding. . . . keep in mind I am experienced legal counsel; proceed at your own reputational risk.
(Revised May 22 2024)
Carla Wolfe
Marysville High School
None
Danny Xu
Eden Prairie High School
None
Frank Yang
Lake Highland Preparatory School
Last changed on
Tue February 6, 2024 at 6:31 AM EDT
Hey! My name's Frank Yang, and I'm currently a college student. I have one year of Congressional Debate and three years of Original Oratory as my competitors' experience. I was in the Central Florida circuit, and competed in countless national tournaments.
Speech/Congress: I write paragraphs in my ballots, and a lot of it will be negative parts of your performance -- please don't take any of my criticism as an attack on your character, but as advice to improve your piece/speaking. That doesn't mean I don't think you did good, or don't deserve praise!
Debate: I'm definitely lay considering I never competed in non-congress debate! As long as you remain respectful to your competitors and debate in a way that's fluent for me to understand, you'll do just fine.
If you have any questions or concerns about any ballot I write, feel free to message me on Instagram at @frank._yang, or email me at frankyang009@gmail.com :)
Last changed on
Fri January 5, 2024 at 8:09 AM CDT
Pronouns: She/her
Lansing '22
4 Years Lansing HS Debate & Forensics
Lansing HS Assistant Coach
KU '
i don't really care what you run as long as you are clear about it, if i don't know what you're saying then i probably won't vote for you. i have a pretty good understanding of debate and basic arguments, if you run something confusing then EXPLAIN IT, jargon should also be explained if it's not a fairly common term just in case i don't know what you're getting at. i would rather you focus on fewer good arguments than try to run 9 off and not know how to explain any of it. if you wanna run a k or anything like that i don't care but i would prefer for it to be something you can clearly convince me of, your k should basically be an alternate reality and if i'm not convinced it can exist then i won't vote for it. win me on basic stock issues before you try to win me on some off the wall argument that is only vaguely relevant to the current debate. as for speed i'm not a huge stickler about speed but i do ask that whatever speed you go that you are clear. if i am left in the dust, cannot understand you, or it's unclear of what's going on i'll probably just stop listening and i'm guess you probably don't want that. if i am judging you then i definitely want to be a part of the document sharing however that may be done, if there's an email chain that's cool: alexa.ymker@gmail.com. i also believe that the 1AC should be able to send the speech out as soon as the round starts so please make sure you are able to do that
Kera Young
Newsome High School
Last changed on
Sat January 20, 2024 at 2:43 AM EDT
Greetings,
I am a new judge. I am a Pediatric Dentist with a private office located in Riverview. I love dogs, in particular large breeds. Young people are the future. I believe love unites us as human beings.
I am a very organized person and I prefer clear concise communication. Unnecessary fluff words are ineffective and boring. With that being said, speeches should be concise, clear, organized, and delivered with confidence. Debates should prove the point and remain on topic at all times.
I am a fair person and I believe that you should treat others BETTER than you treat yourself!
GO BUCS!!!!
Robert Yu
Boston Latin School
None
Theodore Yuo
Aquinas Academy of Pittsburgh
None
Lisa Zeng
Granite Bay High School
None
Charles Zhou
Centennial High School
None
Samantha Zubler
CR North High School
Last changed on
Sat March 2, 2024 at 4:36 AM EDT
Hello, my name is Sam Zubler! I was part of the speech and debate team for four years (three in mock congress, one in speech), and this is my sixth year helping to judge tournaments. I have the most experience with Speech, but I got a bit of experience with Debate last year.
Still, please try to limit spreading in debate. Clarity is key. Since spreading can be a bit subjective, I created three basic determinations to make my views very transparent. 1) If you are skipping syllables, you are going too fast. 2) If you are tripping over your words and its not obviously nerves, you are going too fast. 3) If you are gasping/panting for breath between sentences, you are going too fast. Otherwise, as long as you don't get Too technical with your arguments, everything should be fine.
I am a fairly lenient judge, but I do focus a lot on presentation skills due to my speech/congress background. This can include fluidity, but it also covers posture, use of movements, facial expressions, appropriate theatrical accents, and some pronunciation skills. If you are well informed and well rehearsed, you should be fine.
As a heads up, I may get super nitpicky if you are really good. This is for the purpose of being able to rank you, because sometimes the tiniest of mistakes or hesitations can decide your ranking. I want you all to be able to know exactly why you got the rank that you did, because I know that I hated unhelpful comments when I used to compete.
Accommodations: if you need any, tell me. Verbal stutter or slurred voice? Tell me. I will not count such things against you IF you tell me. I can't do anything if I don't know.
Feel free to ask me any questions, ideally before the round starts. I look forward to seeing all the creative arguments and speeches!
Bryan Zumbro
Germantown High School
None
Lori Zyla
Parkersburg High School
None