I am a parent judge. I enjoy judging and think you all do an excellent job. It is hard to select winners. Have fun.

Sign posting really helps.

email for chain: brandtaimee@gmail.com

Overview: I'm a 3rd year assistant coach @ Garden City High School in SW Kansas. My day job is as a physics teacher. I did not debate in high school but I did debate (policy) for a short time in college before the fact that many of the classes I was taking had a lot of required lab hours got in the way. I will absolutely flow the round.

Arguments: Generally, debate how you want to debate. I think that the best debates happen when debaters are doing their thing, whatever your thing happens to be. But if you want me to evaluate the debate in a particular way, make sure you lay it out for me what that is and why. I don't mind any types of arguments... topicality, counterplans, Ks, whatever. State it clearly and lay it out for me because, while I try to be a person who thinks about things critically and is aware of many arguments/points of view/schools of thought, I may not always be super informed about whatever argument you're attempting to make. Especially with Ks, you probably shouldn't assume I know your literature base. Debate is a persuasive activity anyway, so I feel it's important that you be able to tell me why an argument is meaningful and should persuade me. That goes for things like k/non-topical affs as well -- I am willing to vote for them and have voted for them in the past, but I think it is important that why I should be willing to go outside the resolution is spelled out within the debate.

Speed: I can handle a relatively speedy debate. If I have to put a number on it, I'd say an 8 out of 10 speed is fine with me. But I have to be able to understand what you're saying, so feel free to speak as quickly as you'd like as long as you're understandable at that speed. It's a speaking activity and you're trying to persuade me of something, so I have to be able to follow. Speech docs help. Making sure your tags are clear also helps. Speed over Zoom is harder -- if you are pretty fast and it is a virtual debate it will probably be helpful if you slow down a bit. Please know that I basically always think that a good team who doesn't spread is more impressive than a good team who does, because the non-spreading team is having to make smarter choices about their arguments since they can't fit as many words into the speech time.

Other Stuff:

*** Stealing prep bothers me (I don't want to be part of the reason things run late). Sending your speech doc to your partner is part of prep time -- otherwise they can open it up at the beginning of your speech from the speechdrop or wherever just like anyone else in the round.

*** Remember that the more work you're asking me as the judge to do during the debate, the more likely I am to miss things and maybe not evaluate the debate in the way you personally wish I would. There are two aspects to that: 1) if I am all over my flow looking for where to put an argument because you didn't tell me where it should apply to, some of my brain is getting used on that instead of listening, so I might accidentally miss something; and 2) if you don't explicitly give me ways to evaluate the debate then I have to do that in the ways that I think make the most sense, which might not line up with what you wish I'd do.

*** Be good people. :)

I have debated through high school and in college for my experience in judging and competing

Now that all of that is established, you obviously want to know specifics on your event. Well, I've got you covered.

ALL DEBATE FORMATS:

Email Chain: I would like to be added if it is created, my email is ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

Public Forum:

Philosophy: I will prioritize the flow for voting before all else, as I see it debate is a game and flow is the only fair way to keep my hands off the decision as much as possible

Tech>Truth, however the more shaky an argument is the less it takes to address it. (Ex. Cutting the NSA surveillance leads to the end of the world because of Swiss Physics)

Tabula rasa in round, but be aware I often know the literature on topics so I can better help you and your partner be better throughout the topic.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Crossfire: I will not weigh arguments made in cross unless they are brought up in a main speech.

Front lining: For the first speaking team this should be done in summary, the second rebuttal must frontline the first rebuttal, or else my ballot is written after that assuming they don't fumble the bag.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if all of their impacts come true we still win and be right, then carry that through each speech, you've won my ballot.

New Arguments in Summary: Don't do it :)

Final Focus: Really crystallize the round in this speech. You only have 2 minutes so don't panic to extend the whole flow, my ink is already placed. In this speech tell me the thing standing that without a doubt can't be objected to by anyone viewing the round's flow. The final focus gets overlooked far too much and I think that's a tragedy.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Plans/Counterplans: I will listen to them in the sense that I will not actively cover my ears or mute my computer, but just know that the pro doesn't need to have a defined plan and you can't propose a counterplan as the CON according to section 4 of the PF rulebook so, don't do it :)

Critiques/K arguments: I am not and will not claim to be familiar with the current literature surrounding K arguments. Unless a resolution is truly vile in nature, I will often default to not weighing the K argument at all.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I won't weigh it at all. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9.9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

- Trigger Theory

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, adding personality to your speeches outside of the cards and the written words is the way.

Any other questions just ask at the beginning of round

LD:

Philosophy:

I will vote on the flow, tech>truth, and all that. Something to know, however, is the shakier an argument made is the easier it is for weak opposition to it being enough to make me look away from it.

Speed: On a scale of 1-10 I'd say I can handle 8, but especially for comprehension sake and with online format issues, try to keep your speed at 5-6 for comprehension.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at 1NC and 2AR. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.

Judge Intervention: I won't interrupt or stop the debate unless serious problems arise. this is only like three things and it shouldn't be a worry

- Blatant Racism or Sexism

- Taking way, way too much time to find a card

- Technical difficulties over online

K Arguments: Sure, there aren't many rules barring this and while I won't claim to be constantly in the know on the climate and style of K debate, I think that especially in a format debating moral grounds that gives a platform for these arguments to be heard.

Theory Arguments: Unless a serious violation has been perpetrated that inhibits debate, I will be less likely to weigh as a priority. Granted, I am open-minded enough that you can roll the dice and then you leave it in my place to either interfere in the decision or rule on the flow, 9/10 times ill go with the ladder.

Here is a list of violations that if reasonably committed, would lead me to vote for theory

• Trigger Theory
• Speed

Off the Clock Roadmaps and Signposting: Please do this, it really helps me who has two separate papers to know where you are and if you do this your speaks will probably reflect my gratitude.

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge

Big Questions:

Framing: I think one of the most important aspects of a format predicated on very broad questions is to give a starting ground and agree on what ground the debate is to be. Otherwise it's ships passing in the night and I have to put my opinion far more than you'd like. Defenition is also huge, and making sure in first CX the level of agreement on Defenitions should be prioritized.

Philosophy:Tech is still my main way to vote, however it is just as equivalent to the truth and coherence of the claims. Won arguments that are choppy w/ a not so consistent narrative are harder for me to hang a hat on.

Proving your side correct is just as important as proving the other side wrong. Many times I see particularly NEG teams place burdens and by consolidation say the other side hasn't met so we win. However the nature of inverse resolution also applies to burdens. Thus it may be true they didn't meet their burden, but also prove that you did meet your burden.

Weighing: It makes my decision so much easier if weighing starts at Rebuttal. If you could tell me why even if I buy their value and believe their impacts exist, that you would still win, it is an easy way to my ballot.

Speaker Points: These generally stay high for me, if you really want a 30, looking up from computer/papers is probably the way, or if that doesn't work, adding personality is huge

_________________

Speech/Interp:

I always found that speech paradigms were redundant because there isn't a way to cater your speech to me unless somehow you edit your intro or something. I will say this on the matter as my top 5 biggest things

Ennunciation

Characterization for Interp, Professionalism for speech

Use of Space/Blocking

Memorization

Cutting for Interp/Chosen Sources for speech

Interp Specific: Loud does not equal sad/emotion. Loud sometimes can equal funny, but please if at all possible have emotion be true to human nature. If I hear sad news I don't immediately grab a bullhorn and breakdown in hysteria, it is much more likely and relatable for any onlooker to your piece that emotion comes in subtle shades like the tone of the character's voice, the facial expressions, the body language, so many more things than the volume of the words being said.

If you ever have any questions or want further explanation of a decision I made or how to improve in your given category, just reach out to me at my email ryan.corcoran@my.simpson.edu

LD:

Value-based arguments based on how things ought to be over policy are most persuasive in LD debates, although policy as support can certainly be useful and demonstrative. Progressive argumentation is fine, and spreading is fine if it can still be understood. I expect the winning argument to be persuasive and effectively communicated, I should feel that I have been made to believe in what is being said and why you should win. If I need your case in writing to follow it, it won't be as persuasive and will be judged accordingly. I expect the debaters to set the terms, rules and the outcome of the debate based on what is said, not left unsaid. I won't connect the dots for your arguments, explain it to me. I'm a huge fan of philosophical arguments setting up for clash. I am familiar with a variety of K's and KvK's are great. I enjoy a debate where both an expert and a lay judge can identify a winner. As far as speakers, I am looking for well-paced delivery, signposts, strong framing, and weighing being presented effectively to tell me why you will win.

General prefs

1 Value Framework/Phil

2 Policy/ Mechanism/ K's- best if topical

3 Theory - when an actual rule is broken, much higher. When its frivolous, good luck

4 Tricks

PF: I would really prefer to see PF done the way it was intended. In other words, pure policy and impact weighing without utilizing more progressive methods of debate. That said, I will judge it the way the debaters debate the topics. So, if you go tech rather than substance, I will still be able to judge properly. I do not expect a value framework, and the default is util calculus. Creative and unique arguments will be appreciated over generic stock argumentation

Policy: Anything goes. I am happy to flow any type of debate but again would prefer it to be substantive.

WSD: Everyone seems to judge wsd a little differently; I prefer a civil debate, strategic use of POI's that are not abusive, non-US centric arguments will be encouraged over US only substantive arguments. Effective rhetoric and persuasive narratives will be more useful on my ballot than plan and mechanism focused strategies. Good arguments should be succinct and lay approachable without tech jargon. Establishing a burden and winning framework is a terrific way to get the w on my ballot. Speaks will be based on persuasive appeal, rhetoric, civility, and decorum.

Congress: I am looking for congressional debaters to display appropriate round vision and understanding of the argumentation and how it is interacting on the chamber floor. A great constructive speech given in the middle of a session without clash will not be judged as well as if it were given earlier. I like to see good utilization of questions to impact the debate in chambers, as well as good clash during speeches with direct refutation of other congressional reps. Speeches at the end of a debate on a bill should be more crystallization speeches and preferably give me weighing mechanisms for how to vote on each bill. Delivery matters, but proper understanding of the interaction of argumentation and directing that debate appropriately impacts my ballot the most heavily. Good funny AGD's are always appreciated as well as some LARP in congress is always nice to see. Proper framing of the issues is something lacking in most congress sessions and doing so will help you stand out on my ballot.

Speech: I am very familiar with all the core speech events. The basics; fluency, memorization, gestures, structure, and presence will all be considered.

Extemp: The best extemp will be both entertaining and informative. Some questions need to be answered more like a debate, in which case I want to see you defend your answer. Good evidence and warranting will help you move up my rankings. Some topics are more informative in nature, and while I want your answer supported, I’d also like to learn something. When done right, I should feel like I am watching a good documentary that is fun and educational. Don’t be afraid to make me laugh but also don’t forget to bring all your citations. Use the space and your body properly. In good rounds, every element will count.

Impromptu: Give me something new and your unique take on the topic. Fluency and polish are great, but do not give me something rehearsed. It should be pertinent to the topic, have structure, and show me your special spin on the subject matter. Be creative and make connections I didn’t anticipate to really shine on my ballot.

OO/Info: Like extemp, I would like to be informed and entertained. I have much higher performative expectations for these events. Own the floor space and take over the stage. Get me excited, take me on a ride while also telling me something new and unusual. Topic selection, writing and relatability are strongly considered elements. PA events are not just speeches, they are a full performance, I want to see strong movement that is thoughtful and applicable. The best speeches here are the ones I keep thinking about days later, make the topic matter to me.

Interp Events: I want to understand the story you are telling first and foremost. I love seeing strong distinct characterization, creative blocking, and innovative approaches to familiar tales. In each event, integrate the tools available to you. These are truly performances after all, don't hold back. Be bold, be daring, be big (this doesn’t mean always loud) Use the binder, play around with the chairs, and make unique use of the space available. Remain consistent in your roles. Timing is so pivotal, especially in duo events but also in solo events- looking at you HI. Knowing when to pause and when to speed up is vital. Like most speech events, I am judging holistically the total combination of performative elements, the more of these you do well the better your score will be.

Lisa Haddock

***IF YOU SPREAD, I’m warning you now that I will DROP you. If the average person wouldn’t be able to understand you, I won’t be able to either. I will NOT read off a doc so if I can’t understand you I won’t flow it

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

I'm a traditional LD judge -- I like strong Value and VC clash

I can handle a little speed, but make sure that your rebuttals are crystal clear and that your voting issues don't force me to intervene. Communication and persuasion is important to me. Bad spread that is inefficient and hard to understand drives me nuts.

I won't vote for theory.

Truth over Tech

I'm open to critical arguments, but be sure you actual know what you're talking about. Communicate that you're an expert on the literature, don't just spout out some K and hope I vote for it.

Please put me on the email chain!

Experience: 2 years of policy debate, 15 years of coaching debate.

email chain: jholguin57310@hotmail.com

*I believe systems of apartheid are unjustifiable because they do harm to the ethnic group that is not given full privileges in that society or government nothing you say will move me on that, saying we need to end Affirmative Action or other DEI things you lost me, you say racist/homophobic/anti trans rhetoric I will not only vote you down but request tab disqualify you for the rest of the tournament.

Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.

Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.

I do not tolerate dehumanizing language about topics or opponents of any kind. Public Forum debaters I am looking at you in particular as I don't see it as often in LD.

CX Paradigm

Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.

Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.

Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.

Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.

Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.

For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.

LD Paradigm:
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existent, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards.

PuFo Paradigm:

Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peeve is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech. If out of the constructive I don't understand how you access your offense of your contentions you need to rewrite or start over with your cases.

I am an experienced LD judge and former coach. By all measure, I am a traditional judge. I want to see clearly outlined value structure and clash between opposing values. I expect you to link your impacts to your warrants. Crystalize your voters and remember; it is your responsibility to show the judge why you have won the round. I believe flow tech is vital. It is the responsibility of the debater to extend dropped arguments not the judges'. I have no issue with speed. I will vote on any argument as long it functions within the structure of Lincoln Douglas Debate. Also, never forget this is a public speaking event; if you are speaking you are standing.

I am very much a traditional Debate judge. That means I prefer a more communicative mode of debate. If your speed limits communication, it will be reflected on the ballot. In LD and PF, I prefer no kritiks, plans, or DAs.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for 13 years for different circuits and different levels. On interpretation events, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want. For all INTERP events: It's your performance. Entertain me! For informative, if you are using props, make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow standard speech outline (including hook, intro in which the topic stated, a clear answer is given, and a preview of pts to be discussed is presented; body with pts supporting your answer to the question; and a conclusion in which the topic is restated, a clear answer is given, a review of the pts discussed is provided to tie speech together, and refer back to the hook to give a note of finality) and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later on in round, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning.

BQ: Good delivery is essential to making you a great debater. Don't speak so fast that I miss what you say and cannot flow. Clash is very important during the entire debate. If roadmaps are used, please make them short. In your constructive speech, main points should have claim, warrant and impact. If definitions are used, show me why yours is better than your opponents counter definitions. There should be a clear link to the framework. Make sure to signpost throughout the debate. Be civil during cross fires. Do not speak over each other as nothing will be understood. Make sure to include information found in cross fire in next speech as I don't flow during that time. Extend arguments in rebuttal speech. Bring up drops and explain why they matter in the debate. Consolidation speech should solidify your framework and extend arguments against opponent. At the end, give me voters and tell me why you won.

Hello, I’m Dasha McGinness!

I am a parent of one of the contestants in this tournament. I am new to Speech and Debate and look forward to judging your round!

DEBATE:

I am looking for clear concise arguments that make sense. What I really value is having a good understanding what you are debating. Please try not to spread if possible! It would be appreciated if you could speak up and have a clear tone.

This should go without saying but do not be disrespectful to your opponents.

SPEECH:

I am really focusing on delivery. Please try not to sway. Make your movements purposeful. Eye contact is also favored for oratorical events. Volume and pace are very important. I need to be able to hear you and would appreciate if you did not speed through your performance. Memorization is also an important factor.

If you need time signals — PLEASE ask me before your performance.

Overall, I’m super excited to get to learn more about this community!

Hello there, everyone!

My name is AmandaLesly Miranda, and I am a debater from Wildwood, Florida. I am a debate alum, three-time Nationals Qualifier for World School Debate, and I do mostly debate events. I want to ensure that my judgment is good enough for you and that your expectations are met and hopefully exceeded. There is no need for a debater to be worried about who their judge is and what their qualifications are, so hopefully these qualifications are good enough for you.

For my judging, I always like to go based on the rules, but I will also add my personal opinion. My opinion does not affect your score unless there is a tie, and then I will consult myself to see which one I liked more and which I felt met the standards in a better way, however, I have yet to encounter a tie. If there are any discrepancies with my judgment, I always want to improve, and I will happily take feedback.

For clarification, I wanted to specify what I look for in rounds. For any event, regardless if it's a debate or speech event, I look for appeal during your speech. Whether it's appealing to your judges, audience, or competitor, or appealing to the story that you're saying, you want to keep everyone engaged during your performance.

When it comes to interpretation events, I like to see the fluidness of your speech. Of course, you may stumble or stutter, and I personally don't judge too harshly for this unless it's excessive. But, memorization of the speech, long pauses during its delivery, etc. will definitely affect your score in my eyes. I'm also looking heavily at its delivery, such as speaking tone, speed, and interaction. For me, eye contact is a huge portion, as it gives you a connection to your audience, but I would definitely let it slide if eye contacttechnicallydoesn't fit into your piece. Other than that, I stick with the other general rules given by the NSDA.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, concerns, or anything else about my judging, there are two ways to reach me: Skimmy425@gmail.com (Primary email) and Mandawritesall@gmail.com (Work/Secondary email).

Thank you, and good luck!

Updating in progress, January 2025.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put all three emails on the email chain.

codydb8@gmail.com (different email than years past)

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.com

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourselves. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Ending cx early and turning that time into prep time is not a thing in front of me. You have either 8 or 10 minutes of prep time, use it judiciously. Please, do not prep when time is not running. I do not consider e-mailing documents/chains as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy all kinds of debates. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

If the first thing you do on counterplans is read 3 or 4 permutations and a theory argument at top speed then you know I won't be able to flow all of the distinctions. Why not separate every other analytical argument with an evidenced argument or what if you slowed down just a tad.... I am a great flow, it is just analytical arguments aren't supposed to be read at top speed stacked on top of each other. Same on K's F/w then numerous Perm's all at top speed stacked on top of each other is silly and not realistic for judges to get all of the distinctions/standards.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD January 21, 2025

No tricks, A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will say clearer once or twice and then it is up to you if you are going to choose to read clearly. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or I could look annoyed both of which are clues. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments with compelling warrants will surely affect the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant and why. Dropped arguments are true arguments. Please, be nice to each other. GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

I have over 22 years in speech and debate. I have experience judging every style of debate on both the state and national level.

I have not judged many debate rounds this year, so I prefer a moderate speed of speaking. In my opinion, speaking rate should be motivated by how much you have to say/cover (so if you need to speed it up...go for it!).

I don't usually flow cross examination, but will make notes of concessions and new critical points.

Just because you use a certain term does not mean that I believe your argument.

I am impressed by the use of argumentation skill not jargon.

I like when a debater is organized and signpost.

I expect for debaters to behave respectfully.

Rude, profane, and silly behavior will result in a loss.

Hello!

To keep things short, I am a parent judge but I have judged PF.

Because I am pretty new to judging, I dislike spreading. Speaking pretty fast is the norm for debate, but if it becomes incomprehensible, I will start docking speaker points. Other than that, everything is pretty much the same: be a good debater and make sure nothing is racist, sexist, etc. Attack the arguments, not the people running it.

For PF, I am a tech over truth judge, but PLEASE HAVE WARRANTS. I hate excessive jargon use as well, so while you can say that something is non-unique or has been delinked, talk about the actual argument and not just a "Judge, they conceded our first response to their link on the first affirmation constructive, which is why you vote for us."

Speaking of evidence, I am a huge stickler for this since PF is evidence based: don't misrepresent evidence.

Overall: have congratulations and have fun! That's what this is all about :)

I have been a Speech & Debate judge for just one year. In general, I'm looking for students who display professionalism in all aspects of Speech & Debate - this includes demeanor, language, and treatment of competitors. I'm also looking for students who carry themselves with confidence.

For debate events, I'm looking for an ability to clash with other debaters in a professional, respectful way. The way you treat your opponent will weight heavily.

Speech - For oratory and informative speaking, I'm looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose, something that shows me how much thought you put into it. For extemp, I'm looking for a structured speech, solid evidence (with source and date), and a memorable vehicle.

Interp - For these events, I'm looking for someone who can draw me in and keep my interest throughout. In this, maybe more so than other events, I'm looking for something that really stands apart from the crowd.

Congress - For Congressional debate, I'm looking for a respectful discussion/questions and an ability to bring attention to the most important aspect of the topic being discussed. The ability to speak off-the-cuff instead of reading prepared speeches helps here. You are taking on the role of an elected representative/senator, so keep the discussion calm and on point, and avoid any digs, eye rolls, or snarky responses.

LD/PFD - For LD, I'm looking for an ability to stay on track with your points and those of your opponent. All responses and rebuttals should be given in a respectful way. The ability to disagree without being rude is a skill best learned early. Please do not spread!

I was a three-year extemper and have some experience with Declamation as well. Although I'm relatively new to judging debate, I have general speech and debate knowledge and will evaluate all arguments critically. Treat me as a relatively lay judge, but know that I will be timing speeches and flowing extensively. Though I'll appreciate and consider all arguments, elements of truth and logic are very important. That said, I do not evaluate theory or appreciate K debate. As always, be respectful and courteous to your opponents, and have a good time!

In general, I believe that the most important objectives of debate are facilitating clear communication and logical reasoning in a civil manner. Therefore, the clarity and organization of arguments are enhanced by the general civility and respect displayed towards both opponents and audience.

In CX debate, I tend to consider STOCK ISSUES (topicality, inherency, impacts, solvency, disadvantages, counterplan) when making a decision about whether the affirmative or negative side wins the debate. In general, I weigh the quality of the argument as more important than the quantity of the evidence supplied. In my view, the quality of an argument can be negatively affected by "spreading," especially when the rapid delivery of evidence interferes with civil discourse and effective communication.

Therefore, if the negative team wins one of the stock issues, then they will normally be declared the winner. Similarly, the affirmative team may lose minor arguments in a round, but if they win all the stock issues, they should win the debate.

In LD debate, I value a strong value/criterion framework, especially preferring arguments that are clearly linked by the debater(s) back to the chosen value.

I love a good debate and a finely tuned speech. A convincing delivery goes a long way. I’m looking for succinct arguments, supporting evidence, easy to understand language, and above all, an excellent delivery. Put emotion into your arguments when you want to make a point. Show the impact.

I’m not a fan of spreading, especially when you don’t know your audience. Slow down and take your time. I’d rather hear your argument and be able to process it than be peppered with dialog spoken so fast that I cannot take notes. If you talk too fast, I may not hear or understand your argument and you’ll leave an opening for your opponent.

In college (you need a time machine to reach my college years), I joined Toastmasters and it gave me insight into what makes a successful speech (and debate). Pro tips: prep, open strong, present evidence, keep it conversational, speak with passion, and close strong.

Jaggard Williams

Me:

- Assistant coach at The Pembroke Hill School.

- I have history in Public Forum, (HS) Lincoln Douglas, and collegiate NPDA.

Preferences for round:

- Be polite. I don't vote for rude people.

- I can handle about half-flow speed, but super flow speed does not work for me. If you choose to run uber-fast speed, I will do my best to keep up, but I cannot guarantee anything. :)

- Utilize jaggardwilliams1@gmail.com for the chain.

- Give me roadmaps before speeches so I can get my flow in order.

- I don't love K debate, but if you can articulate it well, go ahead.

Here's my blurb:

I want to see genuine clash in the round. If you completely disregard your opponent's arguments just because you want to run some off-the-wall argument, I'm throwing it out the window. If you can link it to the round, then by all means run with it. If you haven't figured it out, I'll listen and ponder anything you throw at me, it just has to be clearly relevant to the round. Also - please don't be debate robots. I would love to see some humor, personality, and charisma in the round - in your speeches, arguments, articulation, mannerisms, whatever. Make it fun! Please, for the love of God, make it fun.

Please add me to the email chain: sgrobie@gmail.com

-Lay judge, retired teacher and librarian.

-I usually judge PF and am new to LD. Understand your assignment!

-I insist on credible sources, quality research, and a well-organized debate.

-Please use introductory statements, transitions, and make frequent connections between the resolution and your contentions. If I cannot follow your argument, I cannot vote for it. Because debaters are so familiar with the case, they often think many connections are obvious and go without saying. But for a judge to make the same connections, you need to spell them out. Front load background information and explain acronyms, names, etc. I'm trying to listen, flow, evaluate at the same time. Help me out.

-I find that nine out of ten times a debate could go either way. So don't just spew your evidence; tell me why it matters and why I should vote for you. Repeat your important points.

-Avoid spreading. I need to understand you.

-I understand the need to burn your opponent and try something cool in the debate, but that will not help you win my ballot. I don't even know what a K is.

-PLEASE do not waste time when calling for evidence; make it efficient.

-Be respectful of your opponents, have fun, and present your best self. I really dislike any kind of condescending behavior toward your opponent or your partner.

-I admire you for taking part in this activity. You are putting yourself out there to be judged, and that takes a lot of guts. For many of you, debate may be your first experience with "losing" or not being the best at something academic. Know that you are amazing just for trying because debate is HARD. Do your best to put your ego aside and learn from this experience.