-I am a brand new parent judge, and still learning about timing, what flow and other debate concepts are, as well as different formats for speech.

-Please try to speak clearly, with some volume, and at a reasonable pace.

-I'm a lawyer, so preparation and presenting clear and well-supported evidence (from respected sources) in your argument will be very important to me.

-While I value substance over style, style matters. I often find organized and confident speakers more persuasive.

-Politeness and general civility is also important (please no interrupting, eye-rolling, etc.)

-Try to relax and enjoy yourself a little. You got this!

Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case wins the round.

Jason Clarke

Experience:
3 years of high school CX debate
4 years college debate (One year CEDA, 3 years Parli – NPDA)
20 years high school debate coach

Policy Paradigm:

I tend to default to a policymaker paradigm, although I will vote on almost any argument if it is sufficiently warranted and impacted. In most rounds I will weigh the policy impacts according to the time frame, probability, and magnitude of each impact and vote accordingly. If you want me to consider non-policy arguments, like K and T, you just need to provide framework and voters.

I am not opposed to K, in fact I like really good kritiks, but I don't automatically vote on "you link you lose" which has become popular the last few years on the circuit. I prefer for you to explain the role of my ballot in the round to justify my voting for your position. Why is voting for a K and endorsing a theory of power preferable to voting for your opponent's policy option and its impacts? Alternatively, if you fiat a policy or specific plan and your opponent runs a K against it, why should I prefer that policy and its consequences?

If you are clear about how the impacts and voters should be weighed in your rebuttals, you are significantly more likely to win my ballot. Good 2AR and 2NR speeches tell me the story of the round and why I should vote for you. Be sure to extend the internal links, warrants, and impacts of your arguments, not just the tag lines. If you have an overview or under view, your goal should be to clearly articulate what my RFD should be, which makes my job easier.

I am OK with speed - I am pretty used to it by now - but don’t mumble or slur your words together – articulate and efficient speed can be a good strategy; inarticulate spread fails to communicate your arguments. I am a strict flow judge and always vote on the flow in policy debate.

LD Paradigm

I prefer the traditional LD style. I like to see a value and criterion and for your arguments to be impacted through your framework. If you don't have a framework, just be aware that your opponent can use their framework to take out the moral foundation of your argument and win the debate even if you are winning policy implications on the flow. I see policy debate as being primarily about policymaking and LD to be about moral and philosophical questions. I am more likely to vote on a moral or philosophical argument in LD and more likely to vote on consequentialist policy implications in a CX round.

I am okay with reasonable levels of speed but keep in mind that I am more likely to vote on a well articulated and explained moral position than a bunch of cards which you speed through without warrants or explanations. Although in policy debate I flow dropped arguments as granted or conceded, in LD certain arguments can be dropped strategically when a more fundamental or significant argument needs to be further developed. Don't assume I will automatically flow a dropped argument in your favor in LD - you will need to extend the warrants and implications to show me why that dropped argument is more significant than other arguments in the round to win the ballot.

PF Paradigm

Public Forum debate is designed to be a communication-oriented debate style, and I judge it accordingly. I flow every round, but I am more interested in your skill as a debater. I vote for the team that is the most persuasive. This includes your ability to use evidence to support your claims, to speak in a persuasive and articulate manner, and to refute your opponent's ideas in a respectful yet effective way. Avoid spread and jargon in PF please.

LD: In judging, I will be looking at the framework and, more importantly, the impact of the arguments. Speaking should be clear, at a moderate pace, and polite. I focus on the content of the argument, not social conventions like making good eye contact. Points will be lost for rudeness, inappropriate behavior or language.

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps.  You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose.  Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

Judging style - If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be the thesis and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Theory - Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Plans/Counterplans - No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks - No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations - The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question.  The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

Resurrection Christian School

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If you time yourself, your alarm needs to silent. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - You can speak at the pace you prefer, but it is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose. Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. If you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

Burden - Pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Framework - This is everything. This needs to be clear and connect to all the contentions. I expect strong framework clashes. Impact analysis should revolve around this.

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

Frameworks - I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Kritiks and Plans/Counterplans - No. Join policy.

Burden - Pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Final Focus - This needs to have clear voters and extend the summary speech. My RFD is largely dependent on the voters.

Policy

Flashing - One free flash. After that, it comes out of prep time.

Be kind to your opponents in the round, or face the wrath of a default loss (this is more of an issue in policy debate than any event)!

I judge on stock issues. In terms of stock issues, the most important one is significance.

Classical Debate = Yes!

Core Values = Yes!

Criterion = Yes!

Flowing = Yes!

Discussion = Yes!

Philosophical support = Yes!

Spreading/Speed Readng = No!

I use a typical utilitarian paradigm that places a heavy emphasis on impacts and warrants. I also use what one would consider to be a reasonably educated person's understandings of economics, history, and politics. It is also important that arguments are well organized and clear. Furthermore, rebuttals should include impact explanations.

1. Newer to judging.
2. I prefer a measured, deliberate cadence in your delivery.
3. I will take notes during your delivery either by hand or on my computer.
4. I value argument and style equally.
5. I expect participants to be respectful.
6. I appreciate eye contact.
7. No spreading.

In Policy debate, I am a Stock Issues judge.

In LD debate, I am a traditional LD judge who values effective communication, philosophical analysis, and value clash. Very rapid speaking rates are antithetical to this.

First things first- YOU ARE AMAZING! Look at you, doing speech and debate. You give me a renewed sense of hope in the future of our world. I'm proud of you.

LD/PF

I appreciate clear speech, a cadence that I can follow. Do not yell at me. Do not yell at your opponent.

Please be kind and respectful of each other. Especially in cross. On time roadmaps. You get two free card requests; any more than that must be used during your prep time.

I will keep time, feel free to keep your own time as well, however, I do not want to hear an alarm go off. It's distracting for your opponent(s) and for me.

Please do not stare at your laptop and read your speech. I'm not here to listen to you recite a paper you wrote. I appreciate eye contact and speaking from knowledge and passion. I want to hear sources. I want to experience clash. Attack your opponent's speech. Do not spread. I cannot follow when you speak so fast I can't hear your Value, Value C, Contentions, Definitions....etc. If I can't follow, I'm not flowing and therefore, those items will not flow through.

Speech

Do you embody your character(s), blocking? Is your piece funny (humor), does it get to my heart (drama), are you passionate (poetry), can I follow what you're saying, is it cohesive and does it grab my attention? (OO) I don't love when you use a large portion of your time (more than 30 seconds) for an introduction to your piece. Also, I don't want to be lectured in an acting piece about your personal views that you then make normative to the rest of the world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Don't use your introduction to state something as fact that is in fact, not a fact.

About me:

-Political Science Major with emphasis in History, Geography, International Relations and Constitutional Law.

-Retired US Navy Chief Petty Officer with 24 years of service active and reserve.

-Passionate about political issues including ethics in computer science and healthcare.

What I'm looking for:

-Speak to your audience, eye contact is important.

-Too many 'likes' in your speech is a distraction.

-Be positive and enthusiastic.

-Be ethical always.

-Know your topic, using inaccurate information may lower your ranking.

-Be yourself.

I place big emphasis on quality of speech and sound reasoning, along with response. A good debater is a respectful debater so I will not tolerate interrupting or disrespect in round. No spreading, no off-time roadmaps. Just so you know, my background is in public address and extemp, so I look for both quality information and sound delivery.

I enjoy clear, succinct arguments.

Think fast speak slow.

Volume and tone matter.

Respectfully communicate.

Former High School Policy Debater (before PF even existed) in Wisconsin and on National Circuit. Assistant Coach at STRIVE Prep - RISE in Denver, CO. Former coach of DSST: Cole High School in Denver, CO.

PF Specific Updates:

Read Evidence Call me old-school, but I'd like to hear you actually read evidence. I'm really not enjoying the paraphrased tag-line strategy that supposedly brings in the entire card of evidence and warrants without reading the actual warrants in the round. Some teams are "reading" more cards than a policy debate round would, but it is really just citing a bibliography with tags. Furthermore, this then can become a bunch of overtagged claims linked together to some extremely illogical argument that isn't supported by the literature. So, read more evidence. This would also make the rounds so much better because we could go more in depth rather than breadth and actual get to the warrants and clash between arguments.

Summary Speech I do think that summary speeches should be "summarizing" the round down and include all the arguments you plan on going for in the final focus. If you don't argue everything in summary then the round can get very messy with new story-lines/cards reappearing in the final focus speech from way back in the rebuttals but hadn't been talked about since, which seems borderline abusive but definitely makes the weighing and story of the round more confusing. Therefore, if your partner didn't talk about it in Summary I won't listen to your argument in Final Focus.

Overarching thoughts for both PF and Policy:

• Evidence: I am evidence-focused and will ask for evidence if it is up for Debate (in both PF and Policy).
• Warrants/Analysis/Links: The lost art of debate from what I've seen at a lot of local tournaments this year - please explain the warrants, analysis, and links/internal links of your arguments to be strong. If you do not adequately do this, don't be surprised by a decision that you might not agree with as I should not be doing any work on my end to make connections - that is your job to prove it to me.
• Clash: The most successful debaters in front of me will clearly clash with their opponents arguments in the line-by-line and explain why those arguments are flawed or not as good as your counter-analytics/evidence.
• Speed: I can handle speed (as long as your speed is clear), but for the fastest teams will require some slight slowing on tags/authors and analytics/non-evidence based arguments (for example when reading your Aff Plan Details or arguing Topicality) so I can adequately capture everything. If during the round it becomes clear you are a lot faster than the other team, please do not continuing spreading to the point of being mean or your speaks will drop. (Also, for PF when you aren't actually reading evidence even slow speed can be hard for me to flow because I just can't keep up flowing a million tag lines.)
• Flow/Drops: I am a flow judge, and do take dropped arguments seriously. However, I also much prefer argumentation and analysis than a ticky-tack debate about who dropped what. Furthermore, if all you say is "they dropped it, so it flows for us" - I will not give it much weight as you need to explain the importance of the argument and how it matters in the round for me to care about it otherwise you effectively dropped it as well by not explaining it. Also, for PF teams that don't talk about a particular contention after their constructive until the Final Focus and then say "our opponents dropped our contention, so we should win on that" I will not take that seriously as you also effectively dropped it throughout the round.
• Social Etiquette: Do not be bigoted or racist in anyway despite the fact our country seems to currently be okay with that - this is the only time you would ever see judge intervention from me.

Policy Specific Paradigm:

• Policy Maker: I would consider myself a policy-maker that evaluates the impacts of the round for Aff vs Neg. Therefore, 2NR and 2AR would do well to frame the round in term of impact analysis and explain why their impacts are the most critical to be solved - this can be argued and justified in many ways, so convince me.
• Like Well-Argued Kritiks/Critiques: I really enjoy Kritik/Critique arguments. However, most teams do not do them super well as they are deeply philosophical arguments that are often very nuanced. If you argue that fiat is illusory (this is not required, and I actually appreciate the kritiks that have real policy impacts more as they are often more believable and interesting in the debate), you better not link harder to the Kritik in your on-case arguments than your opponent. Also, if fiat is illusory, I do want to hear convincing arguments for your alternative and how voting for you actually achieves this alternative goal (and why the Aff can't just perm it and talk/acknowledge the problems in the pre-fiat world but still debate a hypothetical post-fiat policy world). Also as a recommendation, if you are truly going for a Kritik, you should spend substantial time dedicated to it from both evidence and analytic standpoints as they are complicated topics that should be in some ways outside the "game" of debate.
• Limit Topicality/Theory Arguments: While I will vote on topicality/theory arguments if forced to, I do not enjoy them in any way. I understand running T is a negative strategy as a time suck, so I am okay with one or two T arguments and won't hold it against you, but I hope the round doesn't come to Topicality and the quicker they get punted the better. For someone to win on topicality/theory it will have to be largely dropped or actually show very real abuse (with open-evidence project and familiarity of cases/topics, I have a hard time believing there is very much actual abuse that is happening though, so it better be convincing and don't be surprised if I give leeway to reasonable arguments from the other team.)

General:

- Speech and debate is meant to show off your abilities as well as having fun. That being said, be kind and respectful to one another. Ethics violations will be taken seriously and nobody wants to deal with those

- If you have any questions regarding my paradigms please don't hesitate to reach out - especially if I leave something out here

Speech:

- Because there are so many different events, my paradigms will all be found in the comments and RFD for the round

Debate (PF and LD):

- Speed: Don't spread, if you do you're not only making things more difficult for your opponent(s) but for your judge as well and I don't like that

- Timing: Please keep track of your own time; however, I will also be keeping time and mine is the official time. Additionally, don't have your timer go off on your opponent(s), I find this rude and unnecessary

- Off-time roadmaps: These are fine, but keep them short and simple. If you go on forever I will be starting your time

- Signposting, weighing, and voters: These are your friends! Please use them in your speeches!

- Counter plans and kritiks: Don't even think about using these in PF or LD. These are not the events to do so, and if you really want to then go debate in policy

- PF specific notes: Do not use CX as a rebuttal speech, if you do I reserve the right to stop it. The same goes for GCX. If it turns into a hot mess, I will also be stopping it. I want to watch a debate and not an attempt at a UFC fight

- LD-specific notes: LD revolves around the framework. For this reason, there is less evidence weighing and more emphasis on the VVC. If you do not attack the VVC or link it to your impacts the odds are you will not win

- CX-specific notes: I don't judge CX very often (thank goodness), but when I do two things: 1) seriously don't flash your cases or you will lose and 2) I'm voting on stock issues

Congress:

- Congress speeches are centered around execution and persuasion. I want to see ethos, pathos, and logos, as well as good public speaking skills. Do not read straight from your paper or computer screen the whole time - especially during impacts!

- The best Congress rounds are those similar to the ones at nationals in terms of how speeches progress through the debate. There should be speakers at the beginning who introduce the legislation, additional arguments and the furthering of arguments on both sides, and then crystallization speeches at the very end. Rounds in which speakers continue to give the same arguments with no clash get really boring really quickly

- Questions should be thoughtful and answers should be more than one word. At the same time, don't ramble forever just so there is less time for other questions. The more people who can ask questions is better for everyone

- I understand that Congress can get boring sometimes, especially when rounds go on for hours, but try to maintain your composure as much as possible. Try to limit silly and unnecessary motions and stay on track

- Rankings will be decided on several different factors. I expect the speaker to be engaged as well as show good decorum. Examples of this include: giving speeches and asking questions, making motions, understanding the rules, and not sitting on your phone/being distracted the whole time