I am a lay judge. Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. I do not always disclose, but I usually will if requested. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you.

Speak clearly. If you are talking as fast as possible, I’m not going to understand a word you’re saying and that’s not going to get you any points even if what you are saying is good. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Speak at an appropriate pace and you’ll be good.

Respect is greatly important to me, I will not tolerate any disrespect among all parties. I will dock points for any condescending remarks.

I do not prefer spreading. Card reading should be 3 minutes max.

Take a breath, don't overstress, and most importantly have fun! I know you'll do great :)

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and try to avoid jargon. Also, no theory or Ks, and please do not be abusive or exclusive to your opponents.

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

This is my first year of judging but I do have a few principles that I stand behind.

- No spreading. I flow debates the old fashioned way, by writing on paper. It is the participant's responsibility to make sure I can flow the debate. If I cannot keep up because a presenter speaks too fast or fails to emphasize their points or contentions well, the result may not be what you expect. If you see me writing frantically and seemingly not paying attention to you, slow down.

- I will not connect your arguments. If there is a connection to be made, you must make it for me.

- I like the participants to engage with me as a judge. Eye contact is important to not only see if I'm engaged but also to demonstrate your conviction.

- The better you weigh your impacts, the better your results will be.

- Since I'm a lay judge, if you run plans/counterplans/kritiks I may not understand your argument. Be sure to fully explain what an argument is if you want me to vote on it.

- Please do not try to load your opponent with off-case positions or tons of rebuttals with the hope that they ignore it. I pay attention most to the logic of the round, and will vote off who logically proves their side the best.

Hello, My name is Autumn Kutsick, I competed on Northern Arizona University's Team for a year and a half. I have competed in Parli, IPDA, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and Oxford.

Questions on my paradigm or your ballots email: aj.kutsick@gmail.com

You may use the same email to include me in the evidence chain.

General:

1. Don't be a jerk, when it all ends debate is fun and you and your opponent should both learn something.
2. Please weigh your rounds and your impacts, I don't want to do it for you, it's your job to tell me why something is important and why you deserve the vote.
3. Definitions are important, if you are going to claim abuse on a definition tell me why and where it comes from. Don't just add on to definitions.
4. A plan that lacks solvency is not a plan, you must be able to show your plan will actually accomplish something.
5. Impact Calc is important!! If you want my ballot tell me why you deserve it!
6. Do not weigh impacts in an icky way, especially pfers. I will take you down on ethos if you make an argument that clearly ignores important values.
7. Dropped points are very important, especially if your opponent points it out.
8. Do not lie to me, or manipulate source material. I will not use outside information but if you outright lie I will drop the entire point and your speaks. This goes for purposefully misinterpreting and misconstruing cards as well.
9. Don't put words in your opponent's mouth, especially in the last speech. Listen and do not manipulate, using what they say against their case is fine but don't manipulate them to serve your purposes.
10. Speak clearly, I dislike spreading because I don't want to hear 3 pages of evidence I want to hear the logical conclusions you came to from your evidence. You must make arguments not just use your evidence as your argument. This is a sport that requires critical thinking and I want you to show me where you did that thinking.
11. Link your arguments, I don't need you to hold my hand through your case but I do need to see where you draw connections.
12. Currency and uniqueness are important, if your opponent has older evidence that is less important than newer evidence for the issue at hand point it out. Same with unique impacts, while all impacts are important social media isn't the only cause of body image problems, etc.
13. As being someone who did college parli I understand tech and am not lay, however, if you are going to run an out-of-the-box k it better be clear how everything links together.

Speeches:

1. Signpost, I need to be able to follow you for it to make it onto my flow.
2. Stay away from Ad Homonym attacks, these have no place in the education of any round. You and your opponent are both intelligent, show me that by clashing with their case not their personality.

Cross:

1. Yes, it is binding but less important if it isn't mentioned in the speech.
2. Don't be rude. Again this may be heated but no personal attacks.
3. Make sure there is actually a question, don't drone on where it is unclear to both your opponent and I what you are asking.
4. Statements made by those who are supposed to be asking a question will not be considered.
5. If you are going to cut your opponent off do it respectfully at a natural breaking point.

Counterplans (For Policy):

1. Must prove why they are better with less detrimental impacts. Please don't propose a counterplan without solvency.
2. With a counterplan it should still solve the problem completely. IE.) Don't give me a counterplan for the terrible treatment of prisoners in workplaces saying you are going to pay them minimum wage, this leaves out safety, training, etc.

Voters:

1. I vote on well-linked arguments if your plan solves everything but is poorly linked then the status quo outweighs.
2. Show me how your case is better, and what is more important.
3. Make sure the round weight comes back up at the end.
4. Tell me why I'm voting for you and show the impacts if I don't. Please don't make me do the dirty work.

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD if you stick around. Don't be afraid to ask questions and most of all have fun :)!

“Please speak slowly and clearly because if I can't understand then I can't vote for you"

Updated 9/16/24 for Jim Fountain

I am appreciative and grateful to support the Arizona Speech and Debate community. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the time and energy you, your teammates and coaches invest in preparation.

Congress

PO begins the session ranked first. To move above the PO participants must present all three speeches *(authorship/sponsor, mid round and round ending speeches) that are exemplary and delivered with polish and grace. Based upon Scottsdale Prep I would repeat my hope that experienced CDers will PO. Remember never to read a speech and consider speaking throughout the session first, mid and last. Often that strategic decision will be reflected in your ranking. Never break cycle as that will also be reflected in your rankings to your detriment.

For more click here

Debate

No spreading, warranting > evidence, truth > tech, no progressive or critique. LD and PF please click through and skim the detailed paradigm you will find there as my preferences will be reflected in my rankings. Ethical use of evidence!!!

Click here for more.

Speech/Interp

I value a logical narrative over citation and authenticity in performance over technique

For further detail click here.

Hello everyone, I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging Congress and Speech . Please speak clearly and support your arguments with data and facts. Good luck!

Hello!

Below, you will find my paradigms for debate events. I will do speech paradigms in round, if necessary.

Best of luck to all :)

CONGRESS

1. Do not give empty claims. That is, do not say a point and no evidence! If you do, I cannot say it was a good speech or point if I have 0 cards or sources to back up what you're saying. Moreover, I really like quantitative data. Numbers in relation to your argument is really helpful to see real-life impacts of what you're arguing.

2. Be respectful in debate, questioning, etc. Don't be rude to your fellow debaters and do not address people in the chamber by last name. It is Rep. or Senator whatever. If you say Mr. or Ms. or address by last name, I will drop you immediately!

3. Don't give a speech for the sake of speaking. Always try to give lesser participants chances to speak. For me, I prefer quality over quantity. Thus, just because you give 3 or 4 speeches doesn't mean I will rank you top 8. Additionally, don't spend an hour and a half on a bill if you're just going in circles.

LD/PF

These paradigms apply to both LD and PF:

1. Provide evidence for all your contentions/arguments. I need to hear you clearly state your card sources as well as dates. This is extremely important when I review my flow at the end. Moreover, I really like numerical data when speakers are presenting because it gives real-time evidence on how the issues are affecting us.

2. I ran traditional debate because I preferred the clean and organized layout, however, I'm okay with you running K, theory, counter-plans, etc., as long as your case ties into the resolution.

3. NO SPREADING!!! First, if I can't understand what you are saying, I will not vote for your side. Moreover, if you spread, I will put my pen down and your arguments mean nothing. That is a visual indication to slow down. Please don't abuse the rule or I will immediately end the round!

4. Please be respectful to your fellow competitors. Don't interrupt or insult your opponents. You will lose speaker points and could cost you the round.

At this time, I have no stated paradigms.

I am a parent judge, and I am fairly new to judging speech and debate.

Speech
Speak clearly. Ensure your character transitions are distinguishable and breakouts identifiable.
I value a speech that keeps me engaged.

Debate
Speak clearly. Do not spread.
Be respectful. Do not yell or be abusive.
Identify contentions clearly. Number them so that I can keep track. Use signposting. Stay organized.

Introduction:

Hello! My name is Aden Smith! I did policy debate for 3 years as a 1A/2N and I'm currently doing policy debate at ASU. I've also done every debate event at least once, so if I'm not judging policy I still know what's going on enough to judge. I don't have any hardened biases, so my paradigm is mostly just my views on debate, and if that affects how you execute your strategy in rounds, then more power to you!

Round Docs:

I want round docs, whether I am judging CX, LD, or PF (calling cards if prep smh)I think we should have an email chain. It means that I can keep a more accurate flow and also make competitors more accountable to have quality evidence :). My email is: adenpaulsmith06@gmail.com.

Miscellaneous:

1. Condo is probably good?

2. Spread your heart out!

3. I am a chronic speaker point inflator, so I'm not gonna list those out.

4. Please send a word doc, having to download your google doc for you makes me sad.

5. Read your rehighlights, I feel like that's obvious.

6. If I put on headphones while writing RFD it's not because I hated the round, just need to concentrate.

7. Tech>Truth, and I mean that.

8. Don't be bigoted, I have like 2 jobs: 1. Choose a winner and 2. Ensure a safe space, I've got job 1 down, please make job 2 easy for me :)

Topic Knowledge:

K's: I have either ran or read your lit base at least once, so ~go off queen~ and you do you! For more specifics I have run: Asian melancholia, model minority, Orientalism, Queer, Poesis, Sonics, Security, Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Marx, Capitalism, Settler Colonialism, Coloniality, Psychoanalysis, Kroker, Sharma, and Spanos. I have read the literature for: most genres of anti- blackness, feminism, Hinduism, Indio- sonics, anarchism, Kant (although don't run it I have no idea what that man is saying), biopower, disability, necropolitics, racial capitalism, and some more I can't think of right now!

CX: As far as the policy topic goes, I have done some top-level reading and have gone through the open evidence camp files. So I'll have a general idea on core topic controversies, but not of the extreme nuances that are going on in round, although this will obviously improve as we get further into the year.

LD: The September/ October topic isn't that deep (another reason that the wrong topic was chosen, but that's a different rant). I have read some cases for this topic, and will be judging somewhat frequently in LD. I'll know what's going on, just overview for me and I'll be fine.

PF: My first question is who put me in the PF pool? After that question I'll assess my life choices. Finally, I'd like to say that it's PF, it was made for a lay judge, so if they can understand it I sure hope that I can wrap my brain around it to a standard degree. There's also only so much that can go on in the following 40 minutes for me to understand, so I more than likely will be ok, and if not then I'll take some extra care in making my ballot to make sure a good decision is rendered.

Case:

1. Neg needs to be applying some pressure on case to where I at least have some suspicion about the Aff's impacts, or 2AR will have the easiest time of their life saying case outweighs.

2. I really like a good impact turn, just make sure that you are doing some good weighing on it and not just using it a mute button to one impact.

3. Solvency is an underrated argument, if it was good enough I'd totally vote on a terminal solvency deficit 2NR.

Trix:

1. I said tech over truth didn't I?

2. Give me a good speech doc though please, because there's gonna be a lot of random warrants going around and I need to keep track of them.

Theory:

1. Especially in LD, I'm probably more likely than most judges to vote on a theory shell. Like if PIC's are bad, and dropping the debater is good, then why not vote Aff?

2. Please put your theory shell in the doc, you aren't cool because the other team missed you 2 condo bad standards.

3. I'm pretty neutral on new Aff's bad and disclosure, just win the argument.

Phil:

1. I think phil is pretty cool... I'm just really bad at judging it... sorry.... you can run it if you want... there's just a 75% chance you get judge screwed.

Kritik's:

1. This is probably the type of round I feel most comfortable judging to the point where there is a noticeable skill gap between me in a K round versus me in a Policy round.

2. K Aff's aren't fair, its a bad idea to try to win that they are, Either win structural fairness, violence, or education and you are chilling on the T-USFG page.

3. T-USFG is a good strategy if you are able to win that fairness outweighs, but also that's literally the one argument that the Aff had to prep, so I've never really understood why Neg's go for it, I'd honestly prefer a KvK round even if it's just cap.

4. Both teams need to overview well, there's alot going on in these rounds so I need y'all to synthesize the story you are going for.

5. I think that K Neg's can win without winning pre-fiat framework if they play their cards right and weigh post-fiat.

6. I need a clear explanation of the Alt before the 2nr or its new.

7. Aff's against K neg's should feel free to defend their representations, I think heg good, security good, china good, and cap good are valid strategies.

Topicality:

1. I'm very willing to vote on a well executed T debate.

2. A good neg T-interp needs to give me a caselist if they are going for limits, and probably a TVA to moot Aff education claims.

3. Reasonability if probably a valid argument?

Disadvantages:

1. I really love a good Politics round and it would make me happy if you gave me one :)

2. The two most important things in a DA to me are a coherent story (which means a good overview) and weighing, because its really sad when I buy 100% of the DA, but the Aff outweighs, so weigh for me please.

3. Intrinsicness is probably a valid argument and you can maybe perm a DA if you try hard enough.

4. Risk assessment is an important factor when I'm viewing the weighing debate.

Counterplans:

1. I like generic process counterplans, like alot.

2. I think the Aff should focus less on competitiveness and more on if the counterplan actually solves and any deficits to the counterplan.

3. I think the really long counterplans with a ton of planks are funny.

4. Counterplans should probably be either textually or functionally competitive, its the aff's job to tell me if they need to be both.