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.

Hi!

I debated all throughout high school, mostly LD but I am familiar with the other formats.

I don't care about speed as long as you're not tripping up a lot. Tag teaming is fine. I do flow CX and vote on it so keep that in mind. I'll primarily vote on impacts which outweigh the amount of arguments and evidence every time.

No need to ask if I'm ready, I'll be ready unless I say something.

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’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.

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!

Hello, the first thing you need to know about me as a judge is that I have lost half my hearing. If you start speaking as fast as you can, or just overly fast, then you can pretty much guarantee that you lose. I don't do well with high speeds, as I already have a hard time hearing at normal pace. If I can't hear or understand your argument then you will lose. Simple as that. Beyond that, I believe spreading or speed reading is inherently a form of ableism. Thus I will treat it so. If you want to have a discussion with me on that let me know. I will do what I can to work with you.

I encourage you to tie your arguments into whatever weighing mechanism or value you and your opponent have agreed upon. Try to signpost as best as you can. Also, give me voters! And don't get overly worked up in round, do your best, and have fun!

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.

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.

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 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,

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

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

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

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

If you have questions, please ask!

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

Okay here's the gist...

Clarity and Organization: I want to see speakers presents their arguments with organized points, that have clear logical structure and utilize effective signposting.

Content and Argumentation: I want to see strong use of evidence; clearly stating the source, dates for relevance and, use those sources effectively to counter opposing arguments.

Delivery and Presentation: Everyone has different delivery style/s I get it. Factors I consider are confidence, voice modulation, gestures, eye contact, and overall being present I want to feel like your argument is something you are familiar with and invested in, and we are just having a conversation, you heard.

Clash and Engagement: I will determine how well the debaters are based on how engaged they are with each other's arguments. So are they actively engaging in the debate and directly addressing their opponents' points? if yes then this factor is what makes their case score higher. debate is about challenging ideas don't just stand their and have a speech on your case and don't make effort to poke holes in your oppositions argument. Because that's just no fun, lets have some clash folks!

Time Management: It is advised that for the speakers, effectively manage your allotted time for each speech and stay within the prescribed time limits. Its totally okay to go a little over and maybe 5 seconds or so, more than that however is a no. But do take the time to finish your thoughts and don't panic.

Respect and Decorum: While being a good debater is knowing what your doing and having a good case, its also crucial that as you debate maintain respect for your opponents and the audience. Check for any use of offensive language or behavior, there is certain behavior during in round that should not be tolerated and if that line is crossed as a judge that's just something I will take note of and will weigh in on your performance because debate should not be toxic and ensure participants have fun and learn in a healthy environment.

Cheers and good luck!

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.

My paradigm is pretty easy across the board-I vote on logical well thought out arguments. I want to see clear warrants and connections between your evidence and arguments that show me exactly what you want me to know. Don't leave me to fill in the blanks! I'm also looking for confident speakers that seem to know what they are talking about.

I am absolutely fine with speed, but avoid spreading to be accessible for everyone. I'm good with K's, counterplans, etc if they are ran clearly to both your opponent and I. Welcome to time yourselves of course. If you need to transfer evidence, I won't count it as prep time, but if you begin to abuse it I will. So be organized :)

I want to see an educational, fun, and and engaging round from both parties because that is what debate is all about! Passion is wonderful, but please be kind to your opponents!! Absolutely no homophobia, transphobia, racism, personal attacks etc. in your args will be tolerated. They will kill your speaker points and likely the round.

My background is primarily in college forensics (I'm on the BSU Talkin Broncos!) so I am a little less familiar with some of these high school events. Technical language is totally fine in round, I may just have to double check some rules/logistics. Feel free to clarify any questions with me before the round so we are all on the same page! Good luck!

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.

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.