um i don't judge often so I don't have a paradigm, it's just whoever delivers the speech the best and who made their side the strongest.

Coming into the round knowing proper debate etiquette gives a sense of professionalism starting the round, remember that. I would like you to use as much time as possible in your speech. I do provide grace periods of 10 seconds to close your thoughts but anything over that I will stop you. I am opposed to spreading, as it does not give judges enough time to process information and flow. Debate is about clash! Attack your opponent's arguments, the more you attack the more the argument can progress which could determine your win or loss. Though I say that, keep good sportsmanship, as a debater myself I understand a round getting a little heated, but this is a debate, not a jury, attack without the attitude. To continue, and stay on topic, sometimes the round can turn into arguing about something completely different. Argue your point with an example and move on to the bigger picture. Also, off-clock roadmaps are valued, even though I am flowing I would like to know what topic you are about to speak about (ORDER IS EVERYTHING)

Example: ¨Just for an off-clock road map I am first going to be going over my opponent's speech, then their rebuttal, and with any time left go back over my own...¨

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round.

GOOD LUCK AND GREAT JOB IN ADVANCE!

Hello, I'm Keegan Culpepper my events are PF and LD, but I've participated in most styles of debate. I've been in this amazing program for a little over three years, so I know a lot and I have a lot to learn.

How I Judge-

I judge rounds through framework (in LD), dropped points, impact extension, and common clash. In PF, IPDA, etc. I don't need a framework, and if none is given I will resort to CBA. You can spread just if you do make sure you add me to an email chain with your case. (culpekeega28@cps.k12.ar.us if that doesn't work then culpepperkeegan28@gmail.com) I don't view what is said during questioning as that essential (unless it's Congress) until what is said is brought up in Rebuttals. Also feel free to bring up voting issues if you feel the round hasn't gone smoothly. Tech over truth. Feel free to run anything, Kritik, Theory Shell, (etc) anything is welcome. Just make it understandable. If anything gets to the point of disrespect or offense I will pause the round after the speech and terminate it. Although I'm not very familiar with the styles of debate, I am open to anything.

What I don't Like-

Don't make any personal attacks on your opponent. While speaking don't look at your opponent, look at me (unless it's Congress)! Don't be rude, and make rude comments about your opponent before, during, or after the round. Disrespect of any kind will not be tolerated whatsoever. Do not try to gaslight me as the judge (i.e. making up rules, falsifying evidence, or calling a dropped point that obviously wasn't dropped). Don't be messy going off of the flow. Presentation is crucial!

What I Like-

I love speaking with confidence and passion. I love respect, this means if you are comfortable with it, shake your opponent's hand after the round. I also like calling me, the Judge, to pay attention if you're about to state something essential to your side. Bring up dropped points and give roadmaps/timestamps. Argument wise I love well thought out, unique arguments and deep impacts.

Overall I am a chill judge. Just be kind during your round, and you will do perfect. If I can tell you’ve read this, you’re already a step ahead.

hi! my name is mariska haddock, my pronouns are she/her, and i’m a senior varsity debater at cabot high school.

add me to the email chain -mariskahaddock@gmail.com or haddomaris25@cps.k12.ar.us

TLDR:

be kind people! discrimination of any type is not tolerated and i will drop you

tech > truth

be clear about kicks, defense isn't sticky (extend pls)

flow judge

off-time roadmaps are recommended (unless it’s worlds lol)

pls keep track of speech, cross, & prep time

i wont flow off a doc- try not to exceed 250 wpm

world schools:

the big thing i’ve learned from wsd (done it since freshman year) is COMMUNICATION!! make sure that you’re on the same page with your teammates throughout the debate. you don’t get prep, but you are allowed to talk with your teammates. use that to your advantage. however, don’t be disruptive. the other team and i should not be able to hear you. you should also not be speaking when your teammates are speaking

remember that worlds is about respect to your opponents- hold them at their highest ground and be respectful

content:

be consistent, but don’t just restate what previous speakers said. expand on it and give thorough analysis of WHY it’s important. in prepared motions, i expect quality examples with good analysis that ties them back to the thesis of the argument. in impromptu rounds, try to be as thorough as possible and offer quality analysis. don’t be abusive with burdens and definitions

style:

be persuasive, be engaging, be creative. worlds speeches are similar to oratory’s: each speech is a performance. make eye contact, use body gestures, use vocal inflections, speak at a conversational speed, use humor (but don’t be condescending)

strategy:

be strategic with both asking and taking poi’s. you don’t have to accept every one, but at least acknowledge the person asking (ex. wave them down, verbal “no thank you”). try to take at least 2 tho. maintain control of the floor- holding off a poi until you’re ready or done with the point you are making is okay, and i would encourage you to offer the opportunity for one yourself (for ex, at the end of a sub or argument). and please please please don’t ask poi’s in protected time (first & last minute of speeches, excluding the reply where none are allowed)

be smart with how you allocate your time to cover the most important issues in the debate. try not to spend too much time on one singular issue.

again, BE CONSISTENT. debate like a team, not 3 debaters.

be organized. speeches should be easy to follow and have a clear format

public forum:

i love framework debate (if done well) but if you don’t link & warrant it i can’t vote for it

don’t forget to FULLY extend your arguments- weak extensions won’t win the ballot

try to keep your rebuttals in a line-by-line format or be clear about where you are going

summary should frontline responses in rebuttal

extend terminal defense and offense in summary & extend anything you want to mention in final; please weigh because new weighing in final won’t be evaluated

no new arguments after first sum & i won’t vote off an argument that has conceded weighing if there’s no link

congress:

speak fluently and make eye contact with the judges

have credible evidence and clear impacts

do not attack other reps & pls be respectful if referencing them

ask questions pls

don’t be repetitive with arguments- i <3 reply speeches

be familiar with robert’s rules of order- i don’t expect perfect knowledge but be familiar with it and try to only make correct/germane motions

IPDA:

similar to other events, i expect you to extend, warrant, etc

i’m not expecting carded rebuttals but you should be able to logically respond to your opponents arguments

use prep wisely!! be mindful of the time & make it to round on time

lincoln-douglas:

framework is important and should be warranted and if it’s not extended i won’t weigh it

weigh impacts!

i've only really run disclo and accessibility and some k's (fem, cap, and climate change) but i'm good w anything as long as it is warranted and extended throughout

speech:

try to be reasonably within time

don’t freak out if you stutter once or twice- it’s normal

i generally do bnb events but throw in the occasional oo

make blocking effective and not flashy

i love good cutting- the debate kid in me comes out when pieces are cut effectively and efficiently

drive your point home- similar to debate, make sure your message is clear and impactful.

please be kind people :)

Greetings, I am Hudson Jones, your judge for this round.

I'm a Freshman at Cabot Freshman Academy, and have dabbled at least a little bit in most events; debate and forensics, but I have mostly been in debate.

However, I am new to judging, so forgive me for any judging mishaps, but I will try my best to have a clear outline of what I will mainly be judging for each event.

Even though I'm new, I will still enforce the general rules, so be respectful to everyone in the room, and never speak when anyone else is performing! If you break some of this etiquette I will likely mark down your speaker points, and if it's serious enough it could warrant a loss, or lower ranking.

Overall Debate -

Please do not spread, I think it just makes it harder for everyone to understand, and that should not be the goal. If you're spreading to fit more into your case, then it likely means that you have too much, and should remove some of the less necessary content.

You should always try to sound confident, and as if you really believe in what you're saying. Even if the case somewhat conflicts with your beliefs, sounding like you believe your words definitely helps get your point across.

I think you should try to keep your content engaging. Topics can sometimes be a bit boring, but I think it's important to add in some sort of spice that keeps your case enjoyable to listen to. This isn't a must have, because it can take up space in the case, I just think it's something that can help elevate your case a little bit.

If you notice that your opponent is dropping arguments, or not arguing well enough, point it out to me! If you don't then I likely won't include it in ranking, because if you don't do anything about it, your opponent effectively wins it.

For me, the argument that's more likely to win, is the one that is more impactful and/or more likely. If the debate is around which side will have more of an effect, then whichever I deem to be more impactful will win. If it ends up focusing more on the likelihood of the impacts, then whoever proves theirs is more likely to happen will win.

For sources, I think they should be clearly stated, with an Author, Date, and Where You Found It. If they're not it can be a bit annoying because then you may have to ask about it in Cross-X, or end up using it as an Argument, then saying that you actually said it, but it ended up just being a bit hard to hear. So just try to make sure this is an easily understood part of your case!

Lincoln Douglas -

For LD specifically, you should definitely try to have good questions that can also be taken as an attack on the opponents case. If you don't have any high quality questions, then it is totally acceptable to just ask clarification questions.

I think your First speech should mainly build on your own case, on either side. If you're Neg and attack your opponents case in the first speech, I'm fine with that, it gives the Aff more to attack in their next speech, and more to question. But afterwards, your next speeches should not bring up new Evidence and Arguments, you should really focus on Attacking your opponents case.

Public Forum -

In PF it is a high priority to work well with your teammate. Your strengths and weaknesses should complement each other, and your speeches should build onto each other. Try your best to do this, because it can weaken your case if your speeches are disjointed and don't flow well together. Make sure you talk to your teammate with notes during opponents speeches/prep time, just 100% make sure it is not distracting to the other team.

Otherwise I think you should follow the other guidelines I set for General Debate and/or LD.

Congress -

I've seen a lot of Congress rounds where the same few points are brought up over, and over again. Please do not do this! It gets super boring to watch if everything is being repeated. I would love it if more people went off script after the first few speeches, and did more rebuttal-y type speeches, or add some sort of link between speeches to strengthen that side's arguments.

If you mention what other people said in the round, you should try to mention their name so that it's easier for everyone to see what you're mentioning in their notes.

Overall Forensics -

Unless it's a BNB event, you should of course have your piece memorized. I will have a bit of lenience on this, because I know I struggle with it, but it should be at least 90% memorized.

Your tone and manner of speaking are important, so this will be taken into consideration. You should try to speak in a way that evokes whatever emotion you are trying to convey, or whatever makes the most sense. At least try not to be monotone.

Body language/Blocking can also be a really important piece of the performance, so it should be a pretty big focus. Basically just add blocking in a way that adds to the emotion, or helps get your point across.

Duo -

How well you work with your partner is the centerpiece of Duo, if you can't work well together, the piece simply won't be as good as it could be. So 100% make sure you do your best working with your partner, ie; timing group actions correctly.

Other than that I will likely judge this pretty similarly to other events, but with a big focus on cohesion with your partner.

Prose -

Having a BNB allows for a lot more variety than a lot of other events give, so you should take advantage of that. Figure out creative ways to add the BNB into your piece, instead of leaving it as the book that holds your script. However, make sure that the script is never visible to the audience.

Since Prose is also less strict with what type of piece you can perform, I think that the story becomes more important. A good character arc and story can make a great piece, but this doesn't mean you can skip on the emotion.

Even though Prose has less of a guideline on how the pieces should feel, emotion is still incredibly important. So try to always have an emotion that you are trying to convey.

As a judge with a strong background in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate, I prioritize the values of critical thinking, clarity of argumentation, and ethical arguments in weighing debates.

Debaters must present their arguments clearly and at a pace that allows for comprehension. Speed should not compromise clarity
Use of signposting (explicitly stating what argument is being addressed) is encouraged
At no time will I tolerate any hostility, stay respectful at ALL times, this extends to judges and any spectators.

Cases should at all times be understandable, and emphasize contentions and major points.

Failure to link your case will result in a loss.

I weigh more towards moral impacts, and case integrity, rather than a ton of evidence.

TLDR

No yelling, give your speeches, use your time, dont use flex prep or steal prep, and use common sense in your arguments.

LD/IPDA

In terms of flex prep or steal prep I dont like either and wont allow it. If you do steal prep, depending on how bad it is, I will probly coun you off. I dont care if you talk fast just make sure your not talking so fast I cant understand you. In terms of tech vs truth I dont really care, just make sure your arguments are resonable and you dont drop points. Try and provide off time road maps and if you can signpost. If you yell during a speec I will definitly take off speaker points, try and keep this debate calm. Deffinitaly use all o your time or you will probly loose points (dont worry you wont if you have like 30 second left). Goodluck in your round and dont forget stuff.

Congress

Try not to talk too fast, give atleast one speech and try and ask a couple questions. When it comes to moving the previous question do not try and do it at the very beginning of a bill and wait for people to give there speech. If you try and do it at the ery beginning I will take of points. If you yell during a speec I will definitly take off speaker points, try and keep this debate calm.

Be respectful, be prepared, don't be offensive, speak clearly, don't speak too fast if it isn't clear.

I will be tech over truth until it becomes absurd.

I will not weigh a tech argument if it reaches an absolutely absurd burden, if you have a link of cards saying something that is so factually incorrect that no one should under any circumstances believe it is true ex: the moon is made out of cheese I will not vote on it.

I will not flow from a speech doc, if you cannot speak clear enough then how do I even know you're reading and not just mumbling as fast as possible.

for questions or concerns contact me at aidanpatten1@gmail.com

For Debate: I will be flowing, I am a Junior and decently experienced (4+ years).

I would like there to be a solid understanding of definitions and framework/weighing mech before the summary, it's difficult to judge if I don't know what I'm supposed to be judging on, if a framework is not given or a framework cannot be decided on I will just go cost benefit analysis.

I will prefer tech over truth to a reasonable extent, on link chains with high impact you should extend your links and impacts up until summary and in the final speech focus more on impacts than links, but do not expect me to buy nuke war if you just bring it up in your case or rebuttal once and then randomly pull out a massive impact in final focus, I’m going to instead value hard proven impacts where the link has been extended and where you have laid out for me your linkage and world where this leads to this and therefore this.

Just a general note about evidence, I prefer you to not just have a piece of evidence that says something but a piece of evidence that sort of explains it. This is so you don’t get in a stalemate with your opponent where you’re like “my card says this” and your opponent says “well my card says the opposite”, but in that case someone can win me over by explaining using reasoning.

Idk too much about prog, if you have a solid theory shell because you genuinely believe something the opponent has done was wrong, you can go for it. I can’t guarantee you’ll get my vote but if you have solid reasoning you can win definitely. That being said statistically I will probably end up voting more trad than prog naturally just cuz I’m not used to prog. If you wanna run prog ideally at least run a basic case with it. Also, I do not like SPREADING (300 wpm+). It will by no means be an auto loss but if I didn’t catch something I will not expect your opponent to.

For Forensics: I have no idea what I’m doing I’ll just try and judge based on what I see fit for the event, if it’s HI who was the funniest, if it’s DI who made me the saddest, if it was extemp who sounded the best while making me the most informed and did good stage movements.

Overall, the debate is not a perfetionistic or elite hobby done by the classist socialites of modern day; it's something much more pure studdering, joking wearing a robe and shades, being yourself is the most important part. If you are a naturally rude person, ok great Show bluntly, how redundancy their arguments are and screw fitting a naritvie of nicness. If you have a disposition to being polite and funny, then tell good jokes and be nice.

PF- PF should be understood by random people on the street, so i shouldn't have to have a paradigm.

LD- I love good theory, good K's, and good argumentation just convenience me. I will value argumentation over all else.

BQ- I don't even know just convenience me.

Important stuff:

- T-Sheels will win you round if violation is clearly outlined.

- My definition of disrespect is nye impossible to reach in this round. This is nuanced of course; just don't be overly rude, but being rude will not lose you the round. If you want to use this as an in-round voter, it will not work.

- I'm ok with spreading

- weigh impacts

- Truth over tech, you don't have to prove that the moon is not made out of cheese.* (if it too close i will go down flow and give win by points)

- I hate framework; I don't care

- good clash

- love logic

- signpost

- Speak confidently

- use impact calculus *

I've done Novice IPDA, Junior LD, and Novice Congress. I do Congress the most.

I enjoy a direct logic debate over an emotional debate. I do like when a debater is aggressive towards their opponents argument but don't attack your opponent on a personal level. I don't care about claim, warrant, or impact. I focus on your main argument and evidence. If your evidence is irrefutable or your opponent can't refute it, you win. Specifically for Congress I do love when you find a major flaw with a bill. I hate amendments because if a bill needs a amendment there a definitely other problems with the bill so amendments waste time.

I flow in Google docs as I type faster than I write. Don't speak too quickly or loudly as that can easily come off as aggressive to me.