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

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

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

Before we get into any actual paradigm information, I feel this is important to know: I have one of the most atrocious resting faces, especially when I'm focusing. Please don't think I hate you, even if my face says otherwise. With that being said:

For LD: This debate is meant to be a value debate, so kicking value and criterion will not end well for you. Explain your values, and use them throughout the round, not just at the beginning and end. Speed and flooding the flow is fine by me, just make sure your arguments fit/tie back to your values. Technical language is A-OK, but know that I will not extend anything dropped on my flow unless you tell me to (It can be as simple as just 'extend my C1'). Basically cover the flow and you'll be fine.

For PF: This is the event I spent the most time with, so I have some fairly high expectations (don't get too freaked out though, I promise you'll be fine). This is supposed to be the most conversational event, so I would advise against speeding and technical language. I will still understand your arguments and flow them, but I value comms over tech a majority of the time. With that being said, I will still be flowing, so don't lie about arguments, drop major points on the flow, or add new arguments after the rebuttal speeches. I will notice, and it doesn't reflect well on you as debaters. If you are second speaker and drop your case in rebuttal without a good reason, then pick it back up in summary, it is an immediate loss.

For Congress (if you happen to read this): It's Congress, not much else to say. I know the event, I know how tedious it is, and I know that comms are usually preferred over all else, so that will be a large voting factor. However, you will not rank well unless you actually contribute to the debate. Introduce new points, new evidence, or summarize the debate if we've been on the same bill for a while. I will cry if all of the speeches in a bill are exactly the same: stagnant debate is not good debate. Add something new, or move on to the next bill.

For CX: Admittedly, I didn't spend much time in this event, and as such have somewhat limited knowledge on the tech behind it. Speed is fine, but if there are any technical terms related to policy specifically, you may have to baby me through. Don't assume that means that I am unaware of the rules, however. If you are going to say your opponents are violating the rules or being abusive, be prepared to back it up. If it is a major enough rule break (or critical to the round), I will be checking the rulebook, and if you are wrong that could sway my decision regardless of the other, topical arguments made. (Also, please be nice to each other. I get this event can be rather heated, but don't let it get out of hand).

Clear, concise, and logical arguments. Please be respectful while still being competitive. I do not like spreading.

Speak loudly. Not too fast. Very much value quality over quantity. Be persuasive to the audience. If I cannot understand you, your argument is of no value.

brown.earl@westada.org

Philosophy as a Judge

I prioritize clear communication, logical argumentation, and clash between competing values.

I believe Lincoln-Douglas debate should be a space for intellectual exploration and advocacy. I value clarity, engagement, and a well-supported clash of ideas, balanced by respect for the rules and norms of competitive debate. While I am open to nontraditional approaches, debaters should ensure their arguments remain accessible and grounded in logic or evidence. I seek to evaluate rounds on the merits of the arguments presented, not based on my personal beliefs or biases.

My role as a judge is to evaluate the debate through the lens of the arguments presented, not personal biases or assumptions. I will assess the round based solely on what is argued and how it is warranted.

Framework and Value Debate

1. Framework (Value and Criterion):
• I evaluate the round based on the frameworks presented. If neither debater provides a compelling framework, I will default to the framework that aligns most clearly with the resolution.
• I view the framework as the foundation of the round and prefer clear articulation of how your value and criterion interact with your case and weigh the round.
• If you choose to critique the framework debate itself (e.g., meta-ethics or kritiks of value structures), explain its relevance to the resolution and the round.
2. Resolution Focus:
• I expect arguments to stay tied to the resolution. Philosophy, examples, and evidence should directly link back to the central question of the debate
• Traditional Arguments: Strongly grounded frameworks, clear value/criterion structures, and robust philosophical or policy analysis are welcome.
• Progressive Arguments: I am open to kritiks, theory, and other nontraditional arguments. That said, these arguments must be clearly explained and not rely on buzzwords or assumptions about my familiarity.
• Performance/Advocacy: I am open to creative or performative strategies but only if they tie back to the resolution or the spirit of competitive debate.

Delivery and Communication

1. Speed:
• I can handle speed, but clarity is non-negotiable. If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot weigh it. Please slow down on taglines, value/criterion, and key points.
2. Organization:
• Clear signposting is essential. I appreciate when debaters explicitly tell me where they are in the flow ("Responding to their first contention," etc.).
3. Persuasion:
• Strong rhetorical delivery and ethos can add to the overall impact, but they should not overshadow substantive argumentation.

Decision-Making

1. Flow-Centric:
• I am a flow judge. My decision will be based on the arguments that make it to the end of the round and how they interact with the framework.
2. Weighing:
• Explicitly weigh impacts for me in the round. If you do not explain why your arguments outweigh your opponent’s, I will make that decision based on my evaluation.
3. Dropped Arguments:
• Dropped arguments will be weighed in favor of the side that presented them, provided they are extended and warranted.
4. Kritiks (Ks):
   • I am open to kritiks but expect clear links to the resolution and the opponent’s advocacy.
   • Explain the alternative thoroughly, including how it resolves harms or outweighs other impacts in the round.
   5. Theory and Topicality:
   • I will evaluate theory and topicality arguments if they are run well and presented as voting issues.
   • Frivolous theory or "blippy" arguments that lack development will likely be dismissed.
5. 6.Evidence and Warranting:
   • High-quality evidence is important, but your explanation and warranting carry equal weight.
   • Debaters should not rely solely on card dumps; articulate why your evidence supports your claims and why they matter in the round.
   7. Cross-Examination and Clash:
   • Use CX to clarify or challenge key points, not as a time to grandstand.
   • Clash is critical; engage directly with your opponent’s case and extend arguments to final speeches.
   8. Weighing and Impact Calculus:
   • Comparative analysis (e.g., magnitude, probability, timeframe) is crucial in crystallizing the round.
   • If you don’t weigh arguments or impacts, I may have to make assumptions when deciding the round.

Speaker Points

I award speaker points based on a combination of:

• Clarity and organization.
• Strategic choices and weighing.
• Professionalism
• I reward creativity and bold strategies when executed effectively

I debated 3 years in high school, and have 5 years coaching experience. I am the current head coach at Mountain View High School in Idaho. Most of my focus is on policy debate. When it comes to evaluating the round of any style of debate, I am a tabs judge. If you tell me how to vote, that's the way I will vote. I want you all to debate the best way you do and not try and adapt to what I like. If you can explain to me why you should win the debate, you will win the debate.

With that being said, I have a harder time seeing why running a Kritik should win you my ballot. I do default more to a policy framework. If you can take the time to tell me why you win, then run a K. However, I do tend to see more of a reason to vote for a policy argument. I also love to vote on Theory and Topicality. If you can show abuse in this round, then you have my ballot. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions at the beginning of the round.

I have a lot of prior speech and debate experience. So, I can handle speed as long as you can get your points across clearly. I prefer to have the affirmative on my left and the negative on my right. Signposts/roadmaps are helpful if you are going to break from the flow, so I will know where you are headed. Clearly tie your rebuttal and your evidence to specific claims and arguments. Debates are won by being thorough, not by style. Try to avoid use of "mental space fillers" during your speeches, as it is distracting and indicates a lack of confidence and preparation. These are words such as: "um" "uh" "like" "but um", etc. Every word is important. When you ask your opponents a question, let them answer it without interruption. If the answer is non-responsive, you can follow up or point it out later. Eye contact is important. Don't look at your phone or other device while speaking unless you are quoting a source verbatim and want to be accurate. Be respectful of your opponent.

I’m looking for good, spirited debates about the issue at hand more than technicalities. And please keep in mind that the faster you speak the less likely I am to catch all your key points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: andreadearden@gmail.com

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

Public Forum

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

Lincoln Douglas

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

Policy

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

Hi! My name Claudia and I have been doing speech and debate for many years. I did speech and debate all through high school and participated in many different events in both speech and debate during that time and now I compete collegiately in both speech and debate. As far as my judging, I am looking for clear and concise argumentation. I will flow the round and will use my flow as one of the major factors into deciding who wins this round. That being said, signposting will be greatly appreciated to help me to get all the arguments written down on the flow. Most importantly, however, please be respectful of each other and me as the judge throughout this debate because at the end of the day we all just want to have fun, do our best, and learn something new!

As a Professional in the corporate world, I look for presentation appearance, voice projection and inflection, subject matter expertise, eye contact, and ability to read the room.

I also look for the presenter's ability to listen to their opposition and focus on key points that could support or refute their position. For example, does the presenter listen as well as speak with the goal of strengthening their position by exploiting the weaknesses in the opposing view. A missed opportunity will result in lost points.

Passionate exchange of ideas is encouraged, but aggression in any form will earn a loss. Example, eye-rolling, sarcasm, comments under the breath, exaggerated head gestures demonstrating disapproval or negative reaction, to name a few.

The objective is to learn to be great communicators and enjoy the learning experience.

Quick Notes:

- email chain: harrison.hall1999@gmail.com (use for additional questions after round)

- available for virtual coaching on weekends

- tech > truth generally, but I am fond of epistemology arguments

- fully extend unique impacts speech to speech

- restating taglines is not persuasive; extensions need to include interactive warrants

- this is a shared space so please make it accessible

- I need clash and comparative impact calc to stay awake

- jargon/buzzword spamming is not persuasive & mucks up the flow; signpost with intention

- evidence evaluation is very important to me; send out cut speech docs before speaking

Experience:

- 4 years of local & national LD for Centennial High School

- 3 years of policy for the University of Wyoming (executive authority, space policy, & alliances)

---LD AFF's---

1 Person Policy:

- fiat means that the advocacy of the aff is impervious to domestic political inherency for sake of comparative world construction; nothing more

- moderately high threshold for durable fiat; I need 1-2 warrants for it

- more than 30 seconds of frontlines designed to enable abuse are annoying & obvious; just prep the incoming shell and stop wasting 1AC time

- whole resolution please

- framing is optional but encouraged

- try not to write reverse engineered, impact oriented cases that epitomize security k links; you can still win on tech but I'll be a little bored

Traditional:

- framework should be reasons to prefer a method of evaluation for impacts and/or truth in the round, not just definitions

- definitions should have their own section to clarify ground (and function as interpretations for T)

- LD is a debate of philosophy (aesthetics, axiology, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, etc.), not just vaguely imperative morals; specify your prescribed philosophy to avoid ranting about subjective morality

- if you read an ends-based criterion/standard of any kind, YOU NEED SOLVENCY

- if reading a means-based criterion/standard, you do not need solvency; you also cannot access ends based impacts of any kind

Kritikal:

- discourse, performance, pedagogy, affect, proximity, etc. are all crucial; show me HOW within YOUR aff in THIS round

- if untopical, provide offensive reasons to ditch the resolution

- the more stable your advocacy is, the more stable my vote is; I hate shifty aff's

- please utilize these arguments with the intent to clash and learn more about the topic

Framework Heavy:

- I need at least 1 bit of substantive/contention level offense to weigh through the framework (link + impact); you can't win off of being endlessly theoretically correct

- unframed offense will be evaluated under util by default; make your framing obvious and consistent coming out of the constructive speeches

- epistemology operates above aesthetics, axiology, and moral evaluations in general until you tell me otherwise

- I interpret LD resolutions as truth testing and/or comparative world and enjoy that specific framework debate

- I evaluate competing frameworks under epistemic modesty, not confidence; the neg can weigh their DA's under aff framing, their own, or default util to save time

- stick to your lit; do not use obscurity as a strategy (ie buzzwordy & vague high theory) or I will punish you

---LD NEG's---

Traditional:

- line by line & strategic grouping are a must

- overviews are vital for traditional debaters; condense and collapse the debate to win on depth

- story telling is powerful in traditional debate assuming it isn't highly syllogistic or heavily reliant on pathos

- underviews are time wasters; further contextualize evidence in the rebuttals

- clearly separate the 1NC case from off-case arguments applied to the 1AC flow

DA's:

- do not read linear DA's, especially multiple

- 'DA turns case' is a swell argument, but absolutist rhetoric is sketchy; be specific when explaining the turn on the link and impact level

- high threshold for vague econ, heg, and privatization DA's ; provide recent and specific evidence

CP's:

- condo isn't inherently good or bad, so debate it

- process CP's are boring

- low threshold for PIC's good

- neg fiat must be frontlined in the 1NC; no private actor, no international, no multilateral

K's:

- not everyone is familiar with k's; please make the debate reasonably accessible for sake of clash

- one off k's NEED extensive framing; ROB's, theory, method etc.

- performative contradiction makes evaluating k's super uncomfortable, so please don't do that to me

- do not read multiple prior question/ a priori arguments; that's just backtracking the k and your offense

- the k should NOT operate as a linear DA with an easy to kick CP; provide solvency for your alternative or don't read a k

- links of omission are boring (high threshold)

- rejection alt's are boring (high threshold)

- PLEASE make presumption arguments if the aff functionally does nothing; I will vote for presumption over deontology in most debates

- THEORY TO PRAXIS; CRITIQUE IS A VERB

---GENERAL/RANDOM---

- DISCLOSURE IS GOOD FOR DEBATE and debate arguments

- I am comfortable evaluating policy, LD, and PF but prefer LD simply because framework is fun

- generic t/theory is not persuasive; keep it explicit if you need to utilize those arguments in a 45 minute LD round lol

- high threshold for RVI's; you need to prove that they provided no substance and wasted our time

- do not be condescending or you'll get a low point win

- do not call arguments or people ableist adjectives; your speaks will default to 27

- please default to gender neutral communication; unless your opponent doesn't like being referred to as a side or speaker position just call them those objective terms

- performative contradiction will affect speaker points, but it will only show up on the flow if the opponent impacts out the implications of the contradiction within the debate; subject positioning is crucial to these/all debates

- speed is # of arg's per minute, not words per minute

- if you spread analytics I want a doc (and so does your opponent)

- I'm a sucker for creative impact turns; do NOT impact turn forms of oppression (i.e. Nietzsche turns), but you can totally go the dedev/spark/extinction good/nuke war good route

- you will get dropped for creating a hostile environment; debate is a game, but that should NEVER normalize violence of any kind

- off time roadmaps only need to tell me the order of sheets to flow

- card/file manipulation will drastically affect overall truth threshold and speaks. CLIPPERS BEWARE

- essays with parenthetical citations are not debate cases and hurt my eyes; please utilize discretely cited evidence in the form of tagged cards

- all authors should ideally have qualifications written after the publication date in parenthesis

- please don't use news outlets as sources

- verbally deliver cards with tag, author, and date included

- using a verbal pause followed by "and" or "next" before reading a tag or transitioning in general is a good habit to form

- vague quotes at the top are a waste of time unless they are funny

- being super formal annoys me; just treat debate like the workspace

- I will evaluate any philosophy and sincerely attempt to remove personal biases BUT for the sake of transparency:

--philosophy I hate: Kant (all), Rand/egoism, vague/buzzwordy Baudrillard, Hegel, rule of law, constitutionality, social contract theory (all), trans exclusionary feminism, humanism, cosmopolitanism, minimum effort Rawls that is just colorblindness, state led communism, judeo-christian morality (all), psychoanalysis, and any Marx that dips into material realism

--philosophy I like: anti capitalist scholarship from the last 2 decades, anarchism that accounts for ableism, Beauvoir/existentialism, Braidotti, Butler, Deleuze ♥, Derrida, Escalante, Foucault, Habermas, Nietzsche other than oppression good crap, Puar, Eve Sedgwick (I love paranoid/reparative readings of the 1AC), schizoanalysis, utilitarianism (especially negative, go Karl!) and skepticism (trix 4 dayz)

- trix are fun but don't be mean or overly obnoxious about it

- I low key think that evidence from Rand Corp. and the Heritage Foundation is propaganda

- k debate should not be a 'race to left' with little to no technicality

- traditional debate should not be a 'race to the right' with little to no technicality

- not a fan of choreographed pathos in debate; save it for speech

- not a fan of bravado, condescension, passive aggression, tiny CEO syndrome, meme-ness or any other unprofessional dispositions normalized by debate

- I ultimately think that competitive debate is a black hole of diluted data bent to the egos of hyperconscious maniacs that specialize in sophistic threat construction, so showing off real world research and communication skills is the best way to generate ethos with me

- my goals as a judge are to:

1) attentively & objectively adjudicate

2) learn & teach via critical pedagogy

3) run the tournament smoothly

4) be paid fairly for my time & relevant experience

Be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

You may time yourself

I do flow a little but I tend to lean more towards communication. Make eye contact and speak clearly. I want to know you are talking to me and not your computer.

If you ask your opponent a question, please please let them answer it.

Hello!

My name is Emma (she/her) and I am a former debater! I just graduated last season and did PF for most of my career!

When it comes to judging...

Overall:

• I am a flows judge and will likely flow the round myself to keep track - I will go off this to judge the round overall so try your best to hit all the points
• There is no reason to be rude - things may get heated which is fine to some degree but please be kind to everyone!
• Clarity is key! You have great points I bet and I would love to hear them all so emphasize, breathe, and make sure you are not rushing over things too much
• Everyone should have a good time! You do this because you love the event - remember that!

PF:

I love PF (sorry LD its true)

• Make sure you have your facts! If something gets called out or pulled into question I may ask to see them so have them ready!
• Love voters make them clear (if you make them fun extra points but focus on getting your points across over this duh)
• In grand cross make sure both partners get questions in if at all possible
• Try not to get lost in the tangents I know it is hard but focus on the main points of the debate

LD:

• While I did this event a little less I still love it
• I adore a good cross that shows off your ability to question the case critically - make sure your cross is effective
• Speak clearly please!
• Love an analysis in final rebuttals - tell me WHY and HOW you won compared to your opponent

I am cool with off-time roadmaps!

I am generally a communications judge, meaning that good communication, clear signposting, and also being respectful of each other and the rules of debate is very important to me. I do judge based on the flow, but if I can't get info down on my flow, I won't be able to consider it in my decision

For PF, I am a policy maker judge, meaning I like to view the round as if it is a policy proposal and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the resolution. For LD, I am a tabula rasa judge, so I will focus on and whatever argument is key in the round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do's:

- Warrant every claim you make

- Signpost

- Weigh (start in rebuttal if possible)

- Line-by-Line in summary and final focus

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

Don'ts:

- Poorly paraphrase evidence

- Speed as a tool of exclusion

- Use statistics or evidence that you can't explain

I did debate in high school, all 4 years. I did mainly LD & BQ, but dabbled in PF a few times. My paradigm is pretty simple all in all. The less I have to do the better. The more I think the worse it could be for you. The more you can explain why something matters clearly and concisely the more likely you are to have my ballet. Your job is to convince me, so convince me and do it clearly. Also, I will be going primarily off of quality over quantity. A single well-thought-out argument is much better than a hundred mediocre ones. Speaking of, I hate speed. If you want me to follow the debate, I have to be able to understand you. I will obviously still flow and will try my best to follow the arguments as best I can, but if I can't keep up I will just focus on listening and then only off of my memory for reference, which is not gonna be good for you. If I miss something that will be on you, if you want me to remember something, make it clear that I need to remember it. At the end of the day, all I want is a good clean debate with nothing too crazy. Debate should be fun, so do your best, have fun, and tell me why you should win!

If you want to ask anything specific, please feel free to ask!

I did speech and debate in high school and now I help with coaching. My main format was Public Forum, but I have experience in a lot of formats and events.

With that, even though I can track with a lot of complicated rounds, accessibility in debate means a lot and we should all be striving for that.

For Debate:

I always try to be a tabula rasa, but I would still say I'm a flows judge, so signposting and taglines are super important to me. If I don't even know what side of the flow you are on in your speech, I probably won't even write down what you're saying. With that, I'm not going to make connections for you, so if you can't communicate internal and external links in your speeches, it will be difficult to flow your arguments through.

I am good with speed but clarity, projection, and inflection are where I'm giving speaker points. If I can't understand you, it's not going on the flow.

My decisions are based solely off what is said in speeches. If a great point is presented in cross, it doesn't matter to me until it's in a speech.

Warrants are also super important to me, so make sure all of your links are clear and your evidence is good.

For me, impacts are really what win rounds. If you can show me a clear link story with clear impacts and weigh them well, you'll probably win my ballot.

I can handle some fun RA's and stuff, but if it's not done well then it will be difficult to win my ballot.

Be nice and have fun!!

In PF, I think framework is important. It is the only way to really convince me why your arguments matter at the end of the day. If you're going to run framework, you need to stick to it.

In LD, I think your Value and Criterion should be the core of every single argument and I want to hear about it in every single speech. It will usually be my main judging issue. I am a firm supporter of traditional LD, I don't want it to sound like a PF round and I definitely don't want it to sound like a policy round!

In Congress, clash and preponderance of evidence has always been really impressive to me in this event. A good speaking style and presentation goes a long way for me.

About Me:

I am an Alumni of the Oklahoma City Metro Area NSDA community. I have been a part of this community since 2015. I successfully competed in LD, PFD, Domestic Extemporaneous Speaking, Congress, Prose. & Humorous Duet. I achieved Academic All American (and beyond) and qualified for the national tournament in Domestic Extemp during my time competing. 2015-2017. I also competed at the Oklahoma State Tournament in both PF and Prose. (Funny story, I was once DQd from a state semi-final speech round for going 4 minutes over time! I was too in the moment & Coach was so mad!)

I have two associate's degrees, one in political science and the other liberal arts, a BA in political science from the University of Oklahoma with a double minor in climate change policy & Chinese history. I will be starting towards my master's in public administration at UTSA in the fall of 2025.

About My Experience:

I have attended multiple forensic camps including University of Texas National Forensics Institute.

I was trained in traditional debate by my coach but learned a much more progressive/Circuit style in Texas.

What I Look For:

I am open to both Moral/Value debates and Circuit style debates.

I am fine with some speed as long as I can understand you and it's not a garbled mess.

I am open to plans in LD which can be controversial. However, I do not like a Plan vs a moral/ethical style. I would ask that you have multiple cases ready depending on your opponent's style or are prepared to find the clash between the two cases. Often Plans V Traditional are two ships passing in the night, find were you clash and dig deep. (Often the most clash can be found in the definitions and framework of the round)

I believe your roadmaps should be on time and brief. Sign post and move forward please. However, I am not a stickler for this.

I will cut you off at time even if in the middle of a sentence, IF the sentence is brief you can finish, if not brief please manage your time better and we will move on.

In Cross X I will end it at the time but will allow the answer to be given if we end on a question.

Your criterion MUST uphold your value or else I have no other way to frame and weigh the debate. I want to see heavy framework arguments throughout the round.

I will judge each round on framework and drops. Please hammer home the dropped arguments and explain clearly how your framework provides solvency for your opponent's framework.

PLEASE ASK ME IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS,

Kasey (she/her/hers) -- Assistant Director of Speech & Debate for the Nampa School District.

background: four years of Idaho high school LD 2016-2020. four years of NPDA at Whitman 2020-2024, finished senior season 2nd at the NPTE and 3rd at NPDA. 6ish seasons of speech, platforms and impromptu in high school and a couple years of limited prep in college.

tl;dr: I am not here to micromanage your debates but to adjudicate them. that being said, access is an a priori issue. if you go out of your way to make debate inaccessible or uneducational, you will have a very difficult time picking up my ballot. if there is something specific you would like feedback on, please tell me.

high school debates

I will flow the whole round and will probably vote there. I would much rather evaluate a debate by the mechanics than if you check the boxes as a "conventionally good speaker" (many of our norms of what makes a good speaker are tied up in systemic bias). Warrant, don't forget impact calc, use your framework. We build arguments in a particular way for a reason.

Things I wholeheartedly love: signposting and brief off-time roadmaps. make it easy for me to know where you are because I vote on the flow and want to put arguments in the right place. I do not feel the need for excessive on-time thank-yous and would rather we spend speech time actually debating.

I don't really have preferences on arguments. Do what you want unless it's advocate for genocide.

NPDA/NPTE

do what you want but know that you will have a hard time picking up running MLM in front of me. I love minutiae as evidenced by Jas and I's tendency to collapse to ptix or spec. I am very willing to entertain an over/underlimiting debate and the weirdest process scenarios you can explain well. Ks are cool and I love listening to them but you need to be able to explain how it works in like the simplest of terms and clearly delineate between pre- and post-fiat impacts.

leaning more tech over truth these days and will vote on the flow unless given a reason not to (see note on access above).

your speaks will probably be higher if you give me an interesting impact scenario that isn't we all die in a nuclear winter.

I competed in PF throughout high school and have assistant coached for two teams. I've judged all forms of debate extensively and I love progressive debate. Be clear, signpost, and I should be able to keep up.

I judge off the flow. If you drop arguments, you will lose them. Everything should be carried throughout the round, unless you give me reason it shouldn't be. I also judge heavily on framework (especially in LD and CX) because this tells me how I should measure the round. I'm comfortable with virtually any kind of argument, as long as you can prove to me why it matters.

I don't mind speed. Spreading is fine with me if you go slow on tags and flash your case to your opponent.

I don't care much about propriety (tag-teaming, standing vs seated, etc.) but I do care that you're respectful. This is an educational space. I don't care about assertiveness (totally understand rounds can get heated) but if you need to be mean or condescending to win, you're not a good debater.

See you in round! Good luck! :)

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!

General/ For all Debate

Add me to the email chain: reynolds3809@gmail.com. I'm a flay judge and current coach at Blackfoot High School in Idaho. My decisions will primarily be derived from the flow. I like clash, I do not want cases to be two ships passing in the night, I want them to crash, explode, have fireworks, and all the cool things about debate. Do not simply present your case and defend the whole time, you need to interact with your opponent. If you want something to be remembered on my flow- slow down on the tag or make it obvious you want me to believe it is important. Do impact analysis whether that is using impact calculation or a simple comparison I do not care. Debatewise, I am an inherently lazy person and I hate guessing. So the more weighing you do for me the better- it eliminates all the guesswork that could potentially harm your side. Moreover, we have different perspectives and beliefs so something that you think is important could become missed if you do not tell me it is important in some fashion. Do not be overly rude to your opponents- no ad hominems, sass is fine, but keep it classy. Lastly, I competed 4 years in high school and 4 in college. I've been to nationals, won it twice in college, and placed in the top 5 two other years. I can keep up. Debate how you want to debate, but make sure it is accessible. Before running any prog ask your opponent if they are okay with prog debate. I do not want speed, k, theory, overviews, etc. to become a way to isolate your opponent. That being said, I come from a very traditional debate circuit and competed in Public Forum, so I do not have much experience with good, high-level prog debate.

I am a judge with a background in business and engineering. I listen carefully but rapid fire speech for spreading makes it hard for me to record points in flow. Go too fast and I won't get them all! Thus, I prefer enunciation and pacing and emphasis of key points. I see logical argument as the foundation of a speaker's points and style as the icing on the cake. I watch for the speaker to support their logical foundation with additional lines of reasoning that reinforce it. I enjoy listening to different points of view of the same subject. Detailed understanding of subject matter (when possible with the debate style) is a key to making an argument that will stand up against scrutiny.

I expect contestants to use all the tools of debate available to them, but profanity and demeaning opponents will typically be a negative for me. When speakers are working against another's argument I listen for problems and logical fallacies they have found to erode their opponent's argument. Being respectful and considerate of others is a foundational skill that allows us to explore subjects, doing so while still effectively debating an opponent's argument is a sign of high levels of competency in debate.

I appreciate logical arguments and sound reasoning. Please be polite and respectful of each other. I will flow your arguments but appreciate direct sign posts and also a moderate speed (not too slow, but no spreading please). I’m a former high school policy debater, so I’ve been in your shoes and appreciate the effort and preparation required for debate.

I have experience in high school speech & debate, and as a judge value several things:

1) Organization of speeches.

Do your best to signpost consistently so that I understand exactly where you are on the flow and what you have addressed. Make sure to not only point out dropped arguments, but convince me that they matter.

2) Quality of arguments.

I am always looking for clear, convincing link work, and not just in your cards. I want you to be able to explain exactly how your evidence connects to your argument and how that proves your position. I should be hearing analysis integrated into any positive matter or rebuttal.

3) Impact weighing

This can absolutely win you a round! Make sure to thoroughly use your framework or value/value criterion, and actually weigh your impacts against your opponents, don't just discuss your own arguments!

Other than that, demonstrate respect and have fun!!

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

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

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

No Spreading, if you talk fast, I can't understand and follow your case.

Hi! My name is Sloane (she/her), and I used to do debate! I did PF my entire debate career, but I am also familiar with LD.

What I'm Looking for When Judging:

• I am definitely a flow judge. I want you to respond to every argument in the round. Dropped arguments are a big no-no for me. Make sure to point out your opponent's dropped arguments while also demonstrating why those arguments are crucial to the debate.
• I also really like to see good speech organization. PLEASE signpost, it makes judging so much easier.
• Be nice in round! Please don't be rude to your opponents. Don't say anything mean. Also, DO NOT whisper during other people's speeches. It's rude, annoying, and distracting for the speaker and the judge.
• I love to see strong evidence. If you make claims but have zero evidence to back them up, I'm less likely to vote for you.
• I also would like to see impact calc. Explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent's.
• Strong links! Make sure you can clearly explain how your evidence connects to your argument!

hi! i did public forum all four years in high school so i have some experience with debate!

although i try to be tabulsa rosa judge, i am also a flows judge. if i can't follow where you are on the flow, i probably won't be able to write it down, so please try and keep it organized. although i think it's important to cover the flow, you might not have time to cover all of it so please pick and choose the most important arguments to focus on throughout the debate.

links and warrants are really important for me. although evidence is important, your argument needs to logically make sense. connect your claims with a link, warrant, and impact. with that being said make sure your impact is clear and tell me why your argument matters.

i'm fine with speed so my speaker points will come from clarity and projection!

I did speech and debate in high school for all four years. I did public forum.

I'm a comms judge!

I can handle some speed, but NO SPREADING. If you're going to talk fast, please be clear.

I take note of key arguments - dropped arguments are huge for me, but explain why it's relevant that it was dropped. If your opponent drops a smaller point, I won't value it as much.

I like definitions in the beginning and throughout the round. I want to know what you're talking about. If you have differing definitions, explain whether or not it matters. If they are drastically different, make it a point as to why one fits more than the other, but I will not judge solely off of that.

Framework is important to me. I love it as a voter, but please be clear and only use it as a voter if you're consistently bringing it up throughout the round; don't wait to bring it up only at the end.

RESPECT! It's okay to get a little sassy because this is debate, but still be kind to one another.

ASK QUESTIONS!