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

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

GENERAL :

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding, learn Judge adaptation. If I can't understand your arguments, you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically—I like to be able to connect the dots.

SPEECH:

• Be clear: Ensure your arguments are clear and organized so the judge can follow.
• Be confident: Be confident in every speech and make it seem like you are invested in the round.
• Be respectful: Be respectful of your opponents.
• Be strategic: Consider what will be most compelling to your specific audience.

I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line-by-line, some humor helps) but will give high speaks to other kinds of debaters too

For both LD and PF:

I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

GENERAL:

1. Speak clearly, do not speed. If you are used to speeding, learn Judge adaptation. If I can't understand you, you have lost the round.

2. I like empirical evidence

3. I like a well-thought-out/planned case that makes sense logically—I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I look at how well you know your material. Are you reading it from your paper (laptop)? Are you looking up at your audiences?

5. I listen for over use of "filler" words such as "um, like, etc.". Over use of these words will cost you points.

SPEECH:

• Be clear: Ensure your arguments are clear and organized so the judge can follow.
• Be confident: Be confident in every speech and make it seem like you are invested in the round.
• Be respectful: Be respectful of your opponents.
• Be strategic: Consider what will be most compelling to your specific audience.

I reward speakers - w/ higher points - who make a presentation effort - (eye contact, memorization, slowing down on impact work, grouping & weighing in final speeches vs. a line-by-line, some humor helps).

For both LD and PF:

I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

Experience: I debated all four years of high school (1 year LD, 3 years policy) and currently compete with the ISU debate team. I have experience with all debate formats and currently am the assistant debate coach at Century High School.

The bottom line for me is that debate ought to be fair and accessible for everyone. Don't attack your opponent's character/person, be courteous and friendly, and ensure that the round is accessible to everyone involved. Any display of problematic behavior (racism, sexism, etc.) will result in an immediate loss.

Overall I am fine with whatever arguments you want to run. I love theory and K debate especially, as long as the debate is still accessible to everyone. Regardless of the debate event, please terminalize your impacts. If you aren't telling me why your argument matters, I have no reason to weigh it in your favor.

Please signpost! If you don't tell me where you are on the flow, I'm not going to get your argument down.

LD: Do not make the value-criterion debate a voter. VC is a framework, so if you win the VC debate then that means I weigh the round through your lens.

Run whatever arguments you want (counterplans, DAs, K, theory, etc.), as long as they connect back to your framework and you give me clear, terminalized impacts.

PF: Tell me how to weigh the round. If you don't give me a framework then I default to cost-benefit analysis, but providing a weighing mechanism for me is strongly encouraged.

If your response to your opponent is "That type of argument isn't allowed in PF" I'm probably going to disregard it. Especially when it comes to counter-advocacies, the line separating them from a counterplan is extremely fuzzy. For that reason, I don't lend much weight to "the opposing team is reading a counterplan which isn't allowed". Engage with the counter-advocacy.

Policy (WIP):I LOVE policy and you can read whatever you want for the most part, I'm only particular on a few things.

I'm tech over truth to a point, that point being turns to structural violence. Don't try and turn structural violence or you lose my ballot.

Theory: I love theory! Feel free to read silly theories, they make the round fun. Make sure you warrant out your standards and voters (ie. don't just tell me to vote on fairness and education, tell mywhy to vote on fairness and education).

Topicality: I have a high threshold for T. You can read it, but make sure it isn't frivolous and meant to waste your opponent's time. Use T as it is meant to be used, which is as a check on genuinely untopical affs. If you abuse your ability to read T, I will gladly pick up the other team on an RVI.

Speed: I'm fine with speed as long as you slow down on tags, analytics, etc. (anything that isn't a card) and your opponents are fine with it. If they ask you not to spread and you spread, you'll lose the round.

Welcome! I have been judging since November 2021. I do not have a formal background in speech and debate but my son does Policy and now Public Forum. I have judged LD and various speech events at NSDA Nationals twice. I would say that my best speech and debate teachers have been you debaters! Thank you!

I always ask that you speak clearly and at a speed that I am able to hear and note all your arguments. You DO NOT have to go slow but if you are going so fast I cannot understand you, then I am not hearing your side. I do enjoy a good argument as long as you have the evidence to back it up. Tag teaming is ok, as long as it's done respectfully and is not a distraction.

I do flow the rounds, sometimes on paper, sometimes on my laptop. All I ask for is quality in arguments, not quantity. Don't go evidence dumping just to do it, remember we do have time limits. And if we can, try not to go to Nuclear War.

I want to be persuaded! Whether you are making a case in favor of something or arguing against an issue, make it compelling. Tell me why your argument is important and why it makes sense. This is your time!

Please have respect towards your opponent(s) and show professionalism throughout the debate. I will not vote in your favor if you are rude or disrespectful to each other, your opponent or to me or the judges.

I look forward to hearing all your speeches and debates! Remember to have fun and good luck!

My email address for email chains will be melitafisher4732@gmail.com

I love debate. Do it well :)

This is your round to have and enjoy, so most importantly, make sure that you are being kind to your opponent and having fun!

I am comfortable with speed, but do not be excessive or spread, and I am comfortable with all forms of arguments. If you run a K, or a CounterPlan, or something progressive in LD - it needs to be done in a way that is accessible to your opponent and judges. It also needs to take the debate in a productive direction

If you need to transfer evidence, I won't count it as prep time, but please don't be excessive or abuse that time. (I.E. have your evidence pulled up and organized)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round! Have fun!

My email is hampton.allie@gmail.com if you have any further questions.

I am familiar with all the categories of debate and speech and would classify myself as a comms judge. I feel that excellent communication skills are critical, and in reality, the point in any style or form of debate/speech. What good is the intent of what you are trying to say if you cannot communicate your point to your audience effectively? So, making sure to be clear and articulate, effectively linking and impacting your arguments, and being respectful of your opponent(s) are all big for me. Speed is not usually an issue, as long as the technology cooperates and the clarity is there.

Other than that, I do really appreciate voters in final speeches. Tell me what you see the focal points for the round being, rather than letting me sort through and pull out whatever stood out or comes to mind. In good rounds the decisions are usually very close. Taking the time to remind me of your important arguments or the shortcomings of your opponent's responses helps ensure that I don't overlook anything in making my decision.

Hey everyone!

Experience: I participated in speech and debate in high school for 3 years, mainly focusing on PF, but I've explored other speech and debate events as well.

Debate:

I enjoy PF and LD debate. In debate, I heavily focus oncomms, flow, and being a good civil debater. Let's keep it fun! I believe in respectful interaction. -No Rudeness or intimidation, and please please absolutely no lying.

I appreciate it when debaters make their arguments clear throughout the round, as it does help and make it easier for me who to vote for, without looking too hard. I do value clash, but not at the expense of mutual respect. Let's make debate enjoyable for everyone:)

This is your round so debate as you see fit. I will vote on what you tell me to vote on.

I have experience in forensics, so don't be worried about catering to a lay judge. Be good people and have a good time!

Debate:

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

Congress:

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

Speeches:

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

I did high school debate for 2 years and have done nearly all forms of debate.

I love IMPACTS!!!!!!! Please give me impacts and lots of them!!!!!! (big fat reasons for me to vote for you)

If the world is ending because of the opposing side please tell me why.

Links are pretty great too.

For LD & PF, please don't drop arguments. A dropped contention, framework, value, etc could be the reason you win or lose a round.

General:

During debates, please be respectful for your opponents, clash is okay however you should not come of as rude. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are okay with it. Please avoid using jargon. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good Luck!

I enjoy a more conversational pace over a fast and complex pace. I am big on evidence! Ensure you are able to back up what you present. I want to see respect from both sides. Try to respectfully interrupt your opponent during cross but don't purposefully cut them off.

Please explain or define any complex ideas and overall linkage. I want to see/hear the impacts, this tends to sway my vote more than the "argument".

This is your speech or debate round so I want to see you use your own strengths and build on those strengths throughout. Overall, these rounds should be fun and educational for both sides. Please follow the rules and guidelines of the speech or debate.

Good (Morning, Afternoon, Evening). I debated 4 years in High School and I am currently a member of the Boise State University Speech & Debate team. I am primarily familiar with Public Forum, however I have competed in Congress and am familiar with LD.

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes, time yourselves. I'm fine if you want to run a CP, K, T, whatever, but if it is too confusing for your opponent or used as a "power move" you will not win the round.

I do not really have much to say, debate should be about the competitors, not the judges. You can basically run whatever you want with me, just make sure you have good links. I won't tolerate any homophobia, sexism, transphobia, racism, or personal attacks. Just have a good time.

Have Fun!

Hi all!

Info- I am an assistant coach at Highland HS in ID. I competed for 2 years in highschool, LD 1st and 2nd Congress. He/Him Pronouns

I mostly parli for congress so treat me like i dont know anything about the topics(because i dont).

-I am a communications judge. I want to hear clear speech mostly! I am fine with most speeds, just try not to speed so much that you are out of breath and stumble. I will just stare at you blankly, not typing/writing anything if i cannot understand you.

-Tell me why you should win and why your opponent(s) should lose. Use voters wisely, I use these heavily in my RFD. Be confident with your speeches and crossfires. Get information out of questions. Dont be rude. You can get points across while being calm, cool and collected!

-I do not know theory and ks or speading so do it at your own risk. If your opponents doesnt do it, i would ask for you not to do it. If I do not understand what you are saying, i will not be voting in your favor. Make it make sense. Debate is to be accessible for everyone.

Congress- I want to hear good speech structures, preparedness, barely reading off of computer or paper. Project to the chamber and provide emphasis on the important parts. Provide evidence! Refute points! Pleaseee do not go up to do a speech if it has points that have already been spoken and touched upon. Time management, use up all of your time whether its to touch back on points or making a funny ATG, Make the most of it! I love making congress fun, yet serious at the same time

Hello! My name is Madison Pritchard. I debated for 3 years in high school with experience in LD, Congress, and mainly Public Forum. I have also debated in college at Idaho State University, so safe to say I am very experienced. I have organized my paradigm by events that I am familiar with, as well as some general preferences. Happy debating and good luck!

General:

Be kind! This is high school debate and at its core needs to be about respect and understanding. I love clash but you need to make sure it is respectful, clash makes the debate interesting, without clash a debate ends up being bland. Make sure you are not interrupting your opponent a lot during cross examinations. Be sure that you have all of your evidence on hand and that it is properly cited, if I catch you falsely representing evidence then you will probably get a loss, unless your opponent does something somehow worse. If you choose to run a definition argument, be completely sure you can make it work, I don't love these but sometimes they are needed, make sure it is necessary if you do run one. I am fine with spectators as long as your opponents are fine with it, and as long as they are respectful (NO BEING ON THEIR PHONES). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask in round! Good luck debaters!

Public Forum:

This was my event in high school so you will not be able to get a lot past me here. A good balance of evidence and ethics are the core of this debate. I flow, so make sure your attacks stand and not to drop any main arguments, that will lose you the debate. Do not make the whole debate about evidence, evidence validity debates are not fun for anyone. If I feel a piece of evidence needs addressed, I will take a look once the debate has concluded. Speed reading is not loved but I can follow to a degree, just remember this is not policy.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

I have a decent amount of experience with this event, so I can follow a lot of the jargon and ideas. My main problem sometimes with this debate is when people make it solely about the value/criterion, don't forget to attack the actual case and not just the value it is based on. Remember this debate is about morality, you need to convince me that yours is the morally correct argument, I will carry these over on the flow more than solely logic arguments.

Policy:

I don't have a lot of experience participating in this one, but I have ended up judging it a lot, so I have experience in that sense. A lot of the jargon I can understand but still be sure to explain some of your terms if you think there is a chance they could not be understood. Make sure your links are very clear. When your links get muddy, especially on a counterplan, you can lose me. Topicality arguments can be great, but again, just make sure they are completely clear. I do not love speed reading; I can usually follow but tread carefully.

Congress:

I just thought I would put some things in here I like to see in congress just in case someone looks for it. Make sure your speeches have substance, I really hate throw away speeches. If you are getting up just to get a speech in, it will not get you any points with me. Everyone needs to be respectful, do not be rude or personally attack other representatives. Please do not use questioning periods to debate, use your speeches, if you do this it will not reflect greatly in your ranking.

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

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

I appreciate all the hard work you do! Go speech and debate.

Hi lol (TL;DRs are available after each section)

Any competitors in basic events pretty much just need to read my top-level considerations and their debate event tab.

Please actually read the paradigm, I have been disappointed in several rounds where debaters actively go against the specifications I have provided here.

General info

I have a habit of being verbose in my RFDs and comments. I like to think that this is a good habit since I know I'd want substantial amounts of feedback, but really it makes it difficult to keep up with the rest of the tournament. If it seems like my feedback cuts off in some way or it's lacking, I probably intended to write something that I didn't have time for. Please email me if that is the case at rileyrobinson2006@icloud.com.

I did debate for 2 years, my junior and senior year. I qualified to nationals both times, first in LD and second in Policy. The first year I was a finalist in extemp debate, the second year I was a finalist in Policy. I'm still moderately active in the debate community, currently assistant coaching. I've done all the debate events so I'm generally familiar with the structure of each, and what's important.

I don’t like being referred to as “judge,” it makes me feel like you’re asking me to vote for you rather than telling me how I should vote. Please refer to me as “chat,” if you wish to refer to me at all. You will not be marked down either way.

TL;DR: Come on, you do debate. You can read that.

Top-level considerations

***PLEASE READ: I am a tech over truth judge. I can also flow. Please do not dedicate minutes of time to reviewing your case, because I flowed it during the constructive. Please fill that time with substance instead. You will not win my ballot with pretty speaking, you will win my ballot by telling me how to vote based on the flow.

Accessibility is a huge one. Debate is unique in that it teaches you every time you touch it, from research to case generation to the actual debate. That's what makes debate important, and if one of you actively does something to hurt the learning experience for yourself or anyone else in the round, I'll be significantly less inclined to give you the ballot.

I dislike tricky stuff. Debate is super formulaic and it often boils down to literal math equations to see who wins. I like that simplicity. If you make arguments like "they dropped the link of this single contention so I win the round," I probably won't view it with the same significance as you do. Blunders made by your opponent don't make you the winner of the round, you actually still have to capitalize on the blunder.

Collapsing. I barely went for everything that I was winning in the final speeches of my rounds, and I won't expect you to. Pick your winning strategy and just go for that; it makes the round significantly less confusing. Presumption, outweighing, framework+weighing, and theory are simple and easy ways to get my ballot. I don't care if one person has 3 voters while the other has 1, if the single voter outweighs the entire round then they win. It doesn't have to be complicated.

Rhetoric: please do not spam the word "dropped" like you spam your left mouse button in cookie clicker. I find it to be annoying, untrue (more often than not,) and harmful to the debate. Your speaker points will be dropped by 1-2 points if this is present in the round, and if it's a blatant lie it may cost you the round if you put all your eggs in the "dropped" basket rather than showing me what you've actually won. There will be a section in your personal comments if you fail to uphold this where I go into more detail.

Extensions: I know they seem like they take a lot of time, but consistently extending makes it SO much easier to vote. I don't mean you have to read your constructive again, you just need to give me the one-sentence story of your argument and say that I should vote on it every speech. If something isn't in your final speech, I really really don't want my vote to hinge on it since it will feel like I voted on a whim.

Voters: If your voters are "I debated better" or "the framework debate," they will not make it into my reason for decision. That is a waste of time. If you debated better, show me the results. Which specific impact with a clear link story should I be voting on? Which impacts are more important than others? How does it fill the framework I'm using the best? I want you to fill out my RFD in the last minute or two of your speech. Which issues definitively flow your way, and why does that determine the round instead of what your opponent won?

TL;DR: Be nice and fair, and not overly complicated/tricky.

Advanced considerations

I can follow a quick round, but that's not an excuse to spread. I will accept spreading if your opponent agrees to it, I can hear it, and you slow down if anyone in the round says "clear." Otherwise most of your arguments that are spread won't go on my flow.

I like theory in all debate types, but that doesn't outweigh accessibility. If your opponent has literally no idea what a theory shell is, running one as a gimme won't work. Otherwise, go ahead and run it. As long as you tell me I should evaluate it first and give me a good reason, you'll likely win.

Kritiks are fun but also inaccessible for Idaho. I understand the Idaho circuit is very boring and traditional, and prog stuff like Ks make it a lot more interesting. But if you run one in a mean-spirited manner to close your opponent out of the round, I won't evaluate it. If everyone consents, go for it and it will probably be in the RFD.

My email is rileyrobinson2006@icloud.com. I'm a very lonely college student with almost nothing to do other than obsess over my graphical optimization of Baldur's Gate 3. Please reach out to me if you want advice, someone to look over your case, or if you need a card that might be in my 2023-2024 policy backfiles.

I think that after-round disclosure is healthy for the circuit, but I'm not going to do it, at least for a while. Frankly, I don't need your coaches pissed at me in my 1st year of judging. If all parties are okay with it and your coaches won't go berserk, then maybe I will. You're 100% okay to ask for general advice or my opinion of the round/certain arguments after the debate finishes though.

I don't think that anything has brought me greater joy than goofy debate arguments. Stuff like "affirming negates" and "turing test theory" is so hilarious to me, and I won't mark you down for running those arguments. Heck, I'll even vote on them if they're completely mishandled by your opponent. Basically, please run these arguments if you have them, they don't hurt, just actually win the debate round. Please keep in mind that your opponent should consent before you do a joke round.

A note on judge intervention: these arguments won't be common I'm assuming, but if you ever want to make them they'd better be based on accessibility or anti-hate. Hopefully the round shouldn't get to the point where the ballot relies on my personal beliefs, but that's how I'll vote if it does.

I love gutsy moves with big payoffs. Going all in on topicality if the substance debate isn't going your way, conceding case to go all in on straight turns, etc are really interesting and if you do them well I'll shower you with praise in the comments.

TL;DR: I'm okay to be prog, but Idaho is trad and I'm not gonna let people get left in the dust just because they were taught debate in an Idaho context.

LD

This is quite possibly the most misunderstood event in Idaho imo. It just turns into solo PF, which is specifically not what LD is for. The way that you guarantee a ballot from me is by winning framework, 1+ contentions, and then framing your opponent out of the round/using the framework to make your contention more impactful. Anything else will end up being a coin toss. Frameworks like Util are nice if you're very confident in the contention level debate, just remember it means that I can weigh anything your opponent says against you.

Specifically for the 2AR: I understand that this is your winner speech and you're structurally abused throughout the entire round. That being said, please don't make up new stuff in the final speech. Weighing, framework debate, extending defense and offense are all acceptable, and doing a good job with those can probably win you the round if the neg didn't cover literally everything in their previous speech.

I treat framework not unlike a contention: it's got to have justifications that beat your opponents. Running just a value, criterion, and definitions of said values/criterions is basically just reading a uniqueness card in a contention with nothing else. Fortunately, almost nobody has them in Idaho, so if you have one and your opponent has none, your practically auto-win framework and then the round. If your constructive doesn't have a justification written down, literally just make one up even if you don't have a card.

When it comes to the criterion: John Locke's social contract is interesting and all, but how tf am I supposed to vote on that? Do I just vote for the person who reads Locke's works in round? While this is just an example, it applies to almost every framework I've judged thus far. The criterion shouldn't be a moral philosophy, it should be how I'm using that moral philosophy to vote. For example, make your criterion "helping the least well-off under the philosophy of Rawls' maximum principle" instead of "acting in accordance Rawls' maximum principle." The first tells me what impacts I should consider, and the second makes me feel like I have to consider the quality of the maximum principle. If your criterions are exactly the same, just concede so you can spend more time on substance. You can absolutely win under their framework if the impacts are within its scope.

I like framework clash, but in the sense that it is fun rather than in the sense that you will win if you win the framework debate. Framework is not a contention that makes me vote for you over your opponent. Framework is how I evaluate the contentions. Lots of judges will say "I like framework clash" when they really mean "I think LD is a philosophical debate so I want to hear philosophical arguments." Those people might vote on you because you won the framework alone. I will not. Winning framework might make it easier for you to win, but it is not a win condition in and of itself.

TL;DR: Framework is actually important (though you SHOULD NOT neglect substance,) and more likely than not it will shape my RFD.

PF

This goofy little debate event is probably the blankest slate I've ever seen. I did it for a few tournaments and I've already forgotten its structure. That doesn't mean I hate it though, I just think the debaters can do a lot more stuff than they can with other events.

PF has a reputation among policy kids as the "pretty speaking event" and from my experience it's mostly correct. This isn't to say I won't consider your pretty speaking, it's just that it's more likely to influence my speaker point ratings rather than my ballot.

To influence by ballot, it's pretty much a simple weighing story with collapsing being more significant. I don't want a final focus that goes over everything in the round. I want a final focus that explains why you win on the flow. I default to CBA weighing unless anyone says anything different in their speeches.

Like I said before, PF is kind of a blank slate. I'll accept framework, the goofy-ahh "counter-advocacies," theory, K, as long as it doesn't impact accessibility. Responding to any of these with "this isn't allowed in PF" will more than likely be ignored. (If you rely on this response there will be a section in your personal comments explaining this in detail.) Tell me why(procedurally) it shouldn't be allowed and then you've got a chance, that's actually responsive. A note on counter-advocacies though: to be for real these are counterplans, and they should act like it in-round. If the pro hits it with perms, you've got to respond to it. The counter-advocacy also has to actually do stuff better than the pro too, otherwise it's pro on presumption since the counter-advocacy isn't actually offense.

TL;DR: You can put anything you want in front of me, at the end of the day it's your final focuses that are weighed against each other.

Policy

I'll genuinely be surprised if I ever judge this in Idaho in my lifetime. It was so dead while I was in high school, and I think I hopped on the band-less wagon the final year there was competition. But this is probably my favorite event, it's baller asf, and all-in-all peak debate.

Theory: love it. Run it even if you won't go for it, and if you do go for it, I'll evaluate it first as long as you tell me to. Doing theory and topicality in my HS career was super fun, and it was me and my partner's go-to strategy for many of our neg rounds. I'll know what's happening.

Ks: I'm a little unfamiliar with these, I've only ever done the Cap K and I thought it was really fun. If you want to run a Kritik, just walk me through it. I do have a basic understanding of structure, but don't assume I'm some nats-circut judge even though I wish I was.

Framework: I think this is really fun to go for, I did a soft-left aff with my partner at nats and leaning heavily at framework actually got us pretty far.

I prefer advantages over HIPS, it's just easier to flow tbh.

Please don't be evasive about your plan details during CX. Just be clear and honest.

If you want something to go onto my RFD it had better be in your final speech. Otherwise I won't consider it.

TL;DR: Be so for real, if you're a policy kid you read that whole thing.

Congress

I probably have the least amount of experience with this one, but I did it at nat quals twice and went to finals the second time so I like to think I have a basic understanding. But it's just basic, mind, I won't be your perfect judge.

Stuff I like: Responding to the chamber as a whole! There's a lot of people in a round, and it's really cool when so much stuff is taken together into a speech. Whether that be refuting someone on the other side, or quickly supporting someone on your side, I think that it's very interesting and engaging in an otherwise boring event. This will get you more points per speech.

Stuff I don't like: If you have a "new point" that's a point that's been brought up previously but in a different hat, that will actually mark you down. There's a bunch of stuff to talk about and I get that congress kids have a terminal case of lacking prep, but you could at least respond instead of faking a brand new argument.

TL;DR: The more interesting you make stuff, the more I'll notice you and score you highly. The most interesting stuff in congress is making the debate a web of responses and points instead of a drone of the same stuff over and over.

World Schools

Idk if I'll ever judge this, and honestly it might be better to just ask me before the round what I like to see WS. But anyways, I'll judge this similarly to PF. That's to say, it comes down to collapsing and impact weighing. If the topic is more theoretical, like "this house regrets," then I'll accept similarly theoretical arguments. They can be weighed against each other as well.

There's also an emphasis on framework here as well. It's hard to default to cost-benefit analysis like you can in Policy and PF, so I really really need you to tell me how to judge.

TL;DR: Tell me how to vote, and as long as the round supports voting that way I'll do so.

Again: my email is rileyrobinson2006@icloud.com, I'm happy to help you with literally anything, I know how helpful a second opinion can be.

Better than a lay judge but definitely not TOC finals panel material. I was a tech debater trapped in a trad circuit when I competed in high school.

Did IPDA in college. Was okay at it. Nothing spectacular.

Slow on taglines, authors, and sign posting. Spread on everything else. Stick to the order. If your speed exceeds my ability to follow along I will say “clear” or drop my pen.

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

First and foremost:

I like rounds to be fast and efficient. Do not ask if I am ready, I am always ready. Unless your opponent specifically wants to be asked, do not ask if they are ready as well. Just don't ask if anyone is ready. Roadmaps are okay. Yes time yourselves. I will probably drop you if you use the Idaho debate code as an argument. Rule violations are not to be handled during your speeches. If you use it as an argument I am just going to assume you were not prepared enough to have an actual attack.

LD: I will weigh the round based on the Value/Criterion and voters. Explain your v/c and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the v/c. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the v/c unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the AFF and NEG v/c. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the v/c and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts. Plans and Counter Plans are ok with me! I think that it adds an interesting element to the debate. I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. I love to see impacts.

PF: I will weigh the round based on the Resolutional Analysis and voters. Explain your RA and why it is pertinent to the resolution also be sure to tell me why you win based on the RA. I don't like to see a lot of clash on the RA unless someone runs an abusive one. I think that good debaters are able to show how they win on both the PRO and CON RA. But as I said, if someone is being abusive, feel free to call that out. Please do not run values, that's for LD. Please be clear with signposting. Please provide a clear voter speech (tell me how you win on the RA and other aspects of the round.) I also love to see impacts and impact calc.

Policy: I am absolutely NOT OKAY with kritiks. Please don't run them if you run them. I don't care for "education in debate" args. However, If someone is being abusive feel free to explain how. I am okay with speed but do not talk so fast to the point you are wheezing. Just be understandable. Have impacts and have voters. Be consistent with your plan and counter plan. Constantly remind me why I should care about them or should not care about your opponents. I will weigh the round based on the superior plan or cp.

Updated National Tournament 2024

If you plan on going fast, please put me on the email chain or speech drop (bsondrup@gmail.com). He/Him pronouns

I was a four year debater in high school and college, and now a coach.

I am a tab judge. This means I have no preference and I expect you to tell me how I should vote through framework and role of the ballot analysis. If I am not given this, I tend to default to a utility framework. Feel free to ask me any specific questions before round.

I will evaluate the methodology and reputation of evidence and sources presented to back up your case. I will keep track of the flow and will take note at your speaking ability, but what makes me sign the ballot at the end of the day is how well researched your cases were, if you had any creative arguments that support your side of the flow, whether or not you were a compelling speaker, and how much critical thinking your team showcases by the end of the round. It is my core belief that critical thinking, research, creativity, and confident speaking are the skills you can get from debate. Take liberty with the kinds of arguments you run but keep these four criteria in mind. I am familiar with most of the high school debate vocabulary, and a broad scientific and quantitative background. Don’t dumb down your argument, just explain it concisely and correctly. Explain your arguments well, but I do not need you to treat me like a layperson.

Best of luck and congratulations for participating in debate, it is a transformative experience. I hope you go on to make a positive impact in the world with your future careers.

Congress: I used to do Congress. I prefer it if you speak less time with new and good arguments. Don’t repeat points or have a week speech. Stay engaged with questioning. I am ok with an informal room.

LD: VC is a weighing mechanism. Relate your contentions to it. A dominant CX and clear voting issues wins the round.

PF/Policy: this is partner debate. I want both partners to emphasize a clear story throughout and have relatively equal CX and speaking ability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did LD debate in high school, so it's the format I'm most familiar with. I judge based on presentation, source citation, credibility, and defense for debate events. For speech events I judge based on ethos, pathos, logos, impact, and persuasiveness. In all debates I DO NOT stand for bullying, if you attack people rather than cases I will note it for your coaches and end the round in favor of the team not attacking people. 30 second grace period over and under, I only take one point per person per round

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm:

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

PF Paradigm:

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

CX Paradigm:

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a comms judge. Convince me of your side's argument as clearly as possible, speaking at a pace that I can follow.