conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school, marist (including them now because i judge more for them than i do anyone else at this point)

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

**edit for glenbrooks: after getting roasted for the dissertation that was my paradigm, i've decided to cut it down quite a lot.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

(pssst that's where my "basically" shpiel above comes into play)

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

- time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.

- don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."

- PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.

- even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. be aware i'm a petty college student with nothing to lose by arguing with you about my decision, so you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.

- i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm

- i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.

- PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.

- i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong

- if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.

- i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W. i

- flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.-

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

I am currently a senior in high school and this is my fourth year in Public Forum debate. I try to judge as I would want a judge to in my own personal round. With that being said, I'm judging on how well your arguments flow and the strength of them throughout. I try to judge completely unbiased, so during the debate, I will judge based only on the things I hear in that round. Therefore, if there is some sort of evidence or an argument you want me to know that needs to be said to me. Above all, I do ask that you keep good decorum, there is no need to be rude as it doesn't help your argument.

I'm looking forward to judging some good debates, good luck!

I did public forum for 6 years, so I’ll know any jargon you throw at me

Be respectful, don’t talk over your opponents, keep track of your time, I don’t want to have to cut you off. Give me a roadmap and stick to it (please). Do not debate evidence, I do not care if your card is three months newer than theirs. I don't care that much about crossfire, I'm not flowing it, if something important comes up in crossfire I expect to hear about it in an actual speech

Start weighing in summary, weighing and impact calculus is the most important thing to me, and those should both come out in summary at a minimum.

My biggest pet peeve is using all of your prep right before the final focus

Lmk verbally before the round if you read this paradigm

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. With spread clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations, especially with this year’s topic, and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

Be polite. I vote on good arguments that prove your claim with valid evidence, analysis, and impacts. Please state your claim, contentions, and impacts slowly and clearly. Beyond that you may speak at whatever speed is comfortable to you as long as you speak clearly.

Email chain please! jhollihan18@gmail.com

TL;DR: You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.

Current affiliation: Pittsburgh Central Catholic

he/him

I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales.

Please SLOW DOWN. I have not debated competitively since high school and have become more numb to spreading. I cannot physically write down every argument that you make. I also try not to look at the speech doc. Try to go slower than you normally would. If you are zipping through your theory/T blocks, I will assume that you have not read this and I will be annoyed.

Current debater at Carnegie Mellon University. I have debated 4 years of varsity public forum on both local and national circuits during high school at Cranbrook.

Spreading is okay as long as you are clear. If I don't understand you I will not evaluate your argument. In general, 250wpm - 300wpm is the max speed for clarity with a speech doc.

Quality over quantity. More arguments or evidence doesn't guarantee a better case.

Extend and weigh. I do not evaluate sticky defense.

Tech over truth. If your opponents tell me the moon is made of cheese with warranting, it's made of cheese until you point out otherwise with warranting.

Include me in speech docs and email chains. Speech doc -> higher speaks

If there's a piece of evidence that is contested in the round, I will call for it. If I find it to be paraphrased poorly or if you are misrepresenting the evidence, I will automatically vote for the other side. So don't power tag.

If you're in PF I will not evaluate theory or K unless it is warranted extremely well. My threshold for responses to theory is very low. A counterinterp is not necessary. Do not run disclosure theory. I will not vote for it.

The more I have to intervene in a round (cut you off for overtime, wait for a debater to show up, get asked how much prep you have left, etc), the lower your speaks will be.

I will drop you if your case requires a trigger warning and it is not read at the beginning.

she/her

hyt60435@gmail.com

Currently working towards my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed for Wayne State during my undergraduate degree, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Preference is always towards a speaker starting slower and settling into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards that I didn’t catch because I’m not following the doc. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format.

Pre-NDT 2022 Personhood thoughts -

-The comments I have below about my opinions on TVAs I think have been misinterpreted to mean don't make TVAs if Doug is in the back. My point was never a press to stop making the argument, I think as I emphasize there my issue is more with the context it is often deployed. It is not a worthless argument, but I also don't think it acts as the catch-all debaters often make it out to be.

I think TVAs are most useful when either a super specific articulation of a 1ac which synthesize aff theory with policy expressed with a really good or a few really good pieces of evidence, or a diversity of plans which alone don't encompass all of the aff themes but in totality allow us to over the course of a season test multiple premises of the aff in new and interesting ways in combination which a description of how your model can negotiate defense on the style of questions that promotes through the resolution. At best though it is always defense to whatever the affirmative's impact turn is.

I also seem to differ on layer of explanation necessary for a TVA to interact with themes of the 1ac, i'm not good for do RON with this author's book as your impact framing solves. I am great (read as: better contextually) for here is a policy aff which has incorporated theory on the front end from construction or have a theory of the law which supports this style of change, with novel impact framing or advantages the break from the norms of policy framing. More detail and engagement with aff stuff the better and more likely I am to vote for you.

-I miss impact turn debates

-And 1ars that tried to win the debate.

-Bring back theory debating,

i'm sympathetic that the aff should have to specify resolution dependent stuff or terms in the plan. Not as a voting issue but as a circumvention arg.

-I miss aff teams willing to impact turn a bad DA to mess with block strategy, or straight link turns with like good evidence. Too many debaters reaching for death by a thousand defensive cuts.

Pre-NDT 2021 thoughts:

-I've discovered I'm not a very good judge for framework teams who assume I agree that things like research, iteration, fairness, etc. are all inherently good things and don't need like any unpacking. Iteration is probably the worst offender. "3rd and 4th order testing" isn't a warrant/impact in my mind it's an empty signifier. All research is iterative - because it builds on the research conclusions of previous academics/authors/researchers (standing on the shoulders of giants and all that). Does this mean there is no impact to iteration in the world? No, but when you describe it as a process of testing conclusions - its not really an exclusive impact because the affirmative is also (whether you acknowledge it or not) attempting to test conclusions about the world. So what is an avenue you would find more persuasive? Well most simply its not a question of who iterates. But the types of questions/conclusions we iterate upon. I wanna hear what the iterative process looks under your method and not like just like "it's a predictable stasis" but what truths do we get to test more often under your model. is there a benefit to your model making policy affs vs the K the primary way we engage in critical literature? Does their alternative model also utilize problematic research standards? is K v K debate a sustainable controversy even with a focal point of the resolution? These are questions I never hear in framework debates but are ones I'd be way more interested in hearing then every one's copy-pasta explanation of iteration.

First Semester Alliance Thoughts:

1) I try to keep my camera on while you're speaking universally so you know whether or not I'm there. I've only had one issue of dropping out of a call due to my computer crashing this year. In that instance my user never fully disconnected from the call but just showed as if I turned my camera off. If my camera ever turns off in the middle of someone's speech assume I've dropped from the call and try to pause.

2) Framework on this topic:

a) negative teams have been good at explaining impacts in front of me but less good on the link - I've been persuaded in a lot of instances that affs that defend the end to a particular alliance regardless of their agent or method reasonabley meet the negs interp - especially when coupled with arguments about the topic paper predicting this as an approach to reducing alliance commitments. I don't think I'm un-persuadable on this issue but definitely need a more robust push-back on this arg from the neg when the aff relies heavily on it in the 2ac. Debates about extra-T could also be a useful avenue.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate relevant offense in a debate generally wins my ballot this is universally true for all arguments and how I look at my flow at the end of the debate. Specifics for arguments will be listed below. But generally absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. But communicating and persuading me on the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A sick card that is undersold and not well explained and applied will get my appreciation but not my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. Obviously contested argument backed up by quality ev favors the team with the quality ev.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

You'll get a lot of return investing time in minimizing the other teams thesis. Probability > Magnitude (unless you fall into a "try-or-die" trap).

Thoughts on framework:

I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a one-off position and am compelled by arguments that there should be some limit on the topic and that affirmative teams should have some relationship to the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I can also be persuaded that there are alternative interpretations for the resolution that are beneficial for the purposes of inclusion and are equally as debatable. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. For the aff It resolves what I often find to be a core issue with aff offense on framework is that it is very compelling but the aff doesn’t solve it through the 1ac. Impact turns alone can still win my ballot though.

I think teams focus too much on the need for a TVA. They’re useful contingently but teams waste so much time trying to make something that isn’t even trying to be topical be T. You’d be better served developing better explanations for how SSD resolves their offense or talking about how the communicative model you promote still accesses the relevant pedagogical skills from their literature.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Saying "baudy" caps your points at 28.7.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

My background is in team policy debate. I have also coached LD and PF. I am an evidence-based coach who appreciates the stock issues. I vote for the team that does the better debating. Debating involves making claims, supporting the claims with evidence, and explaining how the claims and evidence build arguments. I vote for teams that refute the other team's claims. I expect the debaters to explain all of the arguments, not assume I know what they are talking about, and weigh all of the issues. There should be voting issues and reasons provided to me as to why I should be voting this way or that way. I am not inclined to vote for generic Kritik arguments, though I will vote for them if they are specifically applied to the issues at hand, and the abovementioned standards have been met.

Current coach for Traverse City Central High School.

Paradigm: I want you to frame the round and tell me where to vote and why. A well developed framework on which I can vote is key. I will not create your arguments for you, so explain them well. As a teacher, it is most important to me that you understand your arguments and learn from the process, so if you can create a framework that convinces me I should vote on it and is well argued I will vote on any argument.

Speed: I come from Policy Debate, so I can handle speed, but please enunciate. Be sure to be clear on your tags and subpoints. Do not use speed as a tool to confuse. I would rather hear quality arguments and clash than spreading just for the sake of confusing your opponent.

Arguments: I generally want the arguments you make to be in the round, not just in cross fire, and I want you to extend them throughout the entire round. If you don't mention them in the last speeches, I will consider them "dropped". 

Procedure: Be polite! This is an educational process and should be respected by all competitors. Regardless of your experience level in this community, we are all still learning.

I strongly prefer that you do your own Crossfires. Each team member should be able to articulate the arguments and should not rely on the other(again learning is the key). I will let you know if your tag-team gets out of hand.

Politeness and respect in the round is a TOP priority. I do not find any flashy behavior appropriate, and will take speaker points for rude interruptions during constructives or rebuttals, cursing or inappropriate language, racist/sexist/classist/xenophobic/homophobic comments to other people in-round, arrogant or insulting comments even if you believe you are winning the round.

Other:

-Line by line! I am super type-A, and if you are not organized my flow is not in your favor.

-Having a card on something doesn't always beat good analytical arguments

-I will not assume dropped arguments are true if you haven’t done the work to extend it.

-Good analysis needs to make it all the way through to the final speeches.

-I need to be able to understand and find your arguments to vote on them, be organized!

I'm always working on learning as a judge and updating my paradigm. I think all types of debate are interesting and enjoyable as long as you do it well. Ask me questions, make good arguments, and help me understand why it is important to vote for you on any argument. Have fun.

Add to me to the email chain: poluskathryn@gmail.com

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

I'd like to add this section while we're still going to online tournaments: I like to judge a round based on the idea that we shouldn't be getting comfortable with all the bells and whistles of an online round. Specifically, as judges and competitors, we shouldn't be getting used to the idea that we can simply lean out of the shot, mute our microphones, or turn our cameras off. I've noticed a change in what's acceptable during a round now that we have these luxuries (obviously), but these changes aren't sustainable and will no longer be around when we return to in-person. Since we've been out for so long, there will be a definite learning curve for all the debaters who joined during the online age, and my hope is that this learning curve won't take so long that competitors are being robbed of the full experience of in-person tournaments.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

If competitors are doing an email chain for evidence; Sanchez-villa@trinityrocks.com

Competed in the Louisville, Kentucky Circuit in high school for three years. Graduated with a major in Political Science from the University of Louisville. I am an assistant coach of Trinity High School for the Speech & Debate team and have held that role for four years now. I say this to highlight that I have years of experience in this event and am familiar with many debate styles, philosophies, frameworks and am aware of changing trends in the debate world, that being said Debate is an educational tool and a time for students to practice analytical thinking and persuasive skills in a unique environment unlike school, so please do not spread at a rate that is so fast that it can never be repeated in a public environment, dont go so fast that the only way to flow is off a speech doc because I will ignore it. Evidence calling is a new thing with the advent of technology post-covid but do not make the evidence calling period so long that it delays the debate and ends up being wasted, call for cards that matter to the judge, not your team. Great debate, for me, is one where both sides are understanding of what the other person's case is stating and evaluating and clashing at that crucial point. There are a lot of debates where people run past each others points and do not actually attack the meat of what is being debated causing me to weigh two worlds that have very little to differentiate from. Competitors should be critical of evidence (yes please do stake the round on thats not what your evidence says, and I will read evidence of contention if I believe there is merit to it not claiming what it means, bad card cutting happens to everyone) and claims being made and any connection that they do not make for me as a judge I will not flow. Make my decision for me with your final speech.

About Me: I went to a small high school and took debate class for all four years. I participated in policy debate, but we often did not compete in co-curricular events. I also joined the CMU Debate team for a semester and participated in Lincoln Douglas debate. In 2007, I judged forensics for MIFA as a student teacher at Utica High School. It has been about 10 years, but I just started coaching and judging Public Forum debate for Utica High School.

Judging Criteria: Providing framework is important, along with clear road mapping throughout your speech. Repeat your framework throughout the speech and adhere to that in your final focus. I usually flow the entire debate and judge primarily off of the flow, but I also weigh persuasiveness, evidence, logic, and refutations. I pay close attention to "dropped" arguments, so I suggest that you and your partner flow as to refute their arguments. Clash is very important to me in a debate. Use all of your speaker time - I am looking for your speech to refute the other teams' arguments, then strengthen your teams' arguments with supplemental evidence. Clear communication is important. Make eye contact as frequent as possible, I also prefer a conversational style, opposed to jargon that a "lay" judge would not understand. I am judging based on the quality of your arguments made - not the quantity. Speakers should appear confident, with clear, logical relevant arguments and recent evidence.

I like confidence in a speaker, but I do not like cockiness or being mean while debating. This is supposed to be fun and educational, so I expect you to keep it classy. Do not look at each other during cross fire - you are trying to persuade me - not your opponent. Do not make statements during cross fire - save that for your summary or final focus. Ask meaningful questions during cross fire, as it can be a turning point for a debate. I am not going to judge a debate based on how "pretty" you speak, but I take your communication style along with case, evidence & arguments into consideration.

Experience:

Competitive:

-PF Debate for 4 years for Brother Rice (2010-2014)

-Extemporaneous Speaking: 5 years (3 years for Brother Rice, 2 years for the University of Michigan)

-Rhetorical Criticism: 1 year (University of Michigan)

Judging:

-PF Debate (2015 – present) for Brother Rice

Professional:

-Programmer in the defense industry (2018 - present)

I typically flow on paper with colored pens in a notebook so there will be a lot of pen clicking.

I judge based on what I hear in the round, but also making way overgeneralized arguments and statements makes me sad inside.

I weigh what I hear talked about more than I weigh stuff that gets dropped by both teams.

Preferences:

Asking to See the Evidence: Don’t use it to steal prep, have a good reason for doing so.

Signposting: Please. Make it easy for me to follow and flow your arguments and responses.

Speed: Talk as fast as you’d like.

Summary and Final Focus: They’re not rebuttals, please don’t ramble. Being clear and concise about why you are winning goes as long way to helping me flow the round.

Timing: You’re more than welcome to time yourself, but my phone’s timer is the authoritative one.

I care that students' points carry through to the end and they give sufficient evidence to support their claims. Anyway a student speaks is fine with me as long as they are clear and easy to understand. Respect each other and you will be fine.