Experience: competed in PF, Policy, and OO during high school and college. Currently coach and run the NWFL Civics and Debate League as an ambassador coach with 10+ years of coaching experience.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. I don't mind aggressive clash debate, but it must remain professional and nonpersonal.

Debate Policies:
I bring a flow pad into the room and you have to prove to me your side will create a better world than your opponent's. I am a flow judge, so be cautious of dropping points and make sure your crystallization is thorough- weigh evidence and contentions.

Speaker points come through in presentation and communication. Pay attention to hand gestures, body language, and eye contact. You CAN be the better speaker and the worse debater, they are two different scores for a reason.

Cross-examination will not be flowed or scored in judging, points must be brought up again in a speech to make the ballot. Does impact speaking points.
I lean slightly tech over truth, but extremes of that are a hard sell.

Lean tech over truth but can go either way and understand the virtues of both. In the end, you tell me why I vote, persuasion is the name of the game in debate.

More of a trad judge, but VERY good prog can win me over.

Dislikes:

Spreading is fine, but quantity does not make up for quality, analysis must be thorough. If you spread, email me your case please.

Likes:

Stand during Cross. Look at me, not the opponent.

Love an off-time roadmap. Helps clarify the flow and clean up the organization.

All debate lies in Impacts and Clash. Prove to me why your world is better than the opponents.

I am the head coach of a middle school speech and debate program. I have taught public speaking for 7 years, judged speech and debate on the high school and collegiate levels for multiple years, and coached a competitive middle school team for 2 years. I serve as a regional ambassador for Northwest Florida and work to support new coaches and train judges. My specialties are Congress and Interpretation Events.

For IE events, I look for coherent, organized writing and cuttings. At the highest levels, the technical skills in your speaking will be scrutinized. Clean transitions and movement, clear cuttings, and good characterization with distinct voice, posture and mannerisms.

In debate events, I value good speaking with clear, coherent arguments. I have degrees in Political Science and History. I have taught public school for 12 years and worked as a trial paralegal through college.

I'm pretty open-minded in general, but vulgar or overly profane statements for pure shock value won't win me over, especially if it isn't age appropriate. Make sure your use of profanity or illicit content actually contributes to the overall performance or argument being made.

Do not spread. If I cannot follow your argument, I will not vote in your favor. Debate that cannot be understood is pointless so save the gamesmanship for someone who prefers that style please.

Use of evidence is important. Not all evidence is created equally so don't throw blogs and websites out as proof of anything that you say. You should be using valid sources and prepared to provide your evidence if I ask for it.

Evidence itself does not win an argument. The impact wins for me. Why does this matter? Why should I care? How does it impact my world? If you can convince me that something has a direct impact on me, I will vote for you.

Don't speak in shorthand. Assuming that others will understand your jargon for arguments or citations isn't good speaking.

Command the room. Use movement and emphatic gestures.

Don't be rude. You can make good points without belittling anyone else. It is ok to call out the absurdity of an argument, but not the intelligence of the person making it.

As a newer judge I appreciate clear enunciation and a moderate speed of speaking. A clearly identified constructive is also very important.

Debate

No spreading. I have auditory processing disorder, and I will NOT be able to understand you.

Signposting claims/contentions is appreciated as it helps me keep track of claims.

Congress- make sure you are keeping the conversation going. I want to hear new claims and evidence, not the exact same speech someone else gave 10 minutes ago.

Speech

Interp- Please let me know in advance if your piece contains any particularly upsetting topics so I am not caught off guard and can focus on judging you.

Similarly to debate, I appreciate signposting claims, and I love a roadmap at the end of your introduction!

Hello! I'm William Kiker, a varsity high school debater with two years of experience debating in many different leagues across all levels of competition from regional tournaments against novices and middle schoolers to national tournaments against debaters with a half decade of experience, hundreds of dollars of case briefs, and hundreds of hours of preparation. As a judge, I'll try my best to give as much feedback to both sides as possible and explain my reason for decision as thoroughly as possible. In my mind, debate is fundamentally an educational activity, and so my job as a judge is to facilitate your education and your improvement as best as possible.

That being said, there are a few preferences of mine that you'll need to be aware of before the round. I am firmly a traditional debater; do not spread so fast that I can not understand you (I expect rounds to be fast-paced, that's just the nature of the activity, but I will not flow what I can't verbally understand), and do not add me to the email chain.

I'm also 'truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth.' I'm inclined not to vote for K's, plans/counterplans (in LD), or theory shells, but if your opponent concedes to them or is unable to refute them, ultimately I have to hold my nose and vote on that basis. Fundamentally, I'm a flow judge; in my mind it's judge intervention to vote on the basis of anything that's not explicitly said in the round, and so when I make my decision I try to look only at what both sides have proven and the arguments they've made to tell me why they've won the round. I vote heavily on crystallization - in my mind, good crystallization wins rounds 90% of the time, since that's essentially you telling me why I should vote for you.

Also, and this should go without saying, no racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or any kind of bigotry or ad hominem attacks in round. Where I'm from in Florida there's a weird controversy over including this kind of thing in your paradigm, but I think it still needs to be said. To make it clear, however, conservatism and bigotry are not the same thing, and to equate them is completely unfair. I will take political biases out of my decision as much as possible, and I'm inclined to vote for arguments that are conservative in nature just as much as I am to vote for arguments that are liberal in nature, but outright bigotry will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate loss with the lowest possible speaker points. Be respectful to your opponent and to your judges in everything that you do in a round, that's the bottom line.

Raj Pattabi

I am a parent Judge and excited to be part of this judging process.

What and how I judge are as follows

• Assess the strength of arguments that includes the clarity of the thesis, quality of evidence, and logical coherence
• How well debaters respond to counterarguments and whether they maintain a logical and consistent position
• Consider the persuasiveness of debaters, presentation style, research and evidence
• Assess the debaters’ cross-examination skills, overall delivery and style

I am a parent judge. I have judged parliamentary debate before so I am aware of the format.

Arguments

Please be clear and read your arguments slowly so that I can understand. If you read them fast (spread), I will not be able to flow properly. Try not to use extremely technical terms that are not very obvious and even if you have to, please explain it clearly.

I prefer traditional on case debate. I'm fine with counterplans but please explain it clearly.

I am not familiar with Ks (kritiks) and theory so please refrain from running those arguments UNLESS there is actual abuse of rules present. If that is the case, please explain the abuse VERY clearly. Please don't run theory just for the sake of running theory.

Other

Use the last speech to explain exactly why you should win the round. Weigh out the impacts of both sides.

You will be awarded high speaker points for speaking clearly, having a good presentation, and being respectful to your opponents.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)