Sophomore at Princeton debating British Parliamentary and did 4 years of PF in HS.

fawazahmad@princeton.edu if you have any questions.

Overarching things:

Tech>Truth: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are bs so I evaluate the round solely on what's presented in the round regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. But remember the more sophisticated your argument gets the lower threshold I have on evaluating responses.

Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. Introducing a framework in second summary is FAR too late. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF it should be included in summary. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Progressive args: I don't have that much experience with progressive arguments. I don't like theory debates but will tolerate them. Run these types of arguments with caution. If you run them with me explain them really well in round.

Misc:

-I will not flow cross. If something important happened in cross mention it in speech.

- When time stops, I will stop flowing. Anything said over the time limit will not factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; don't spread. If you plan on speaking fast please send a speech doc. If I can't understand you I'll say clear and after 3 times I'll stop flowing.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense

- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
-There's nothing more I hate than long speeches in cross.

-Please be nice people in round and don't run arguments that are harmful to a group of people

GLHF

As a diabetic I wear a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). The sensor communicates with my phone, and a "gentle" alarm will sound when my blood sugar is too high or too low. If this happens during a round, please continue as normal. If my blood sugar is too low, you'll see me eat something. If it's too high I likely will give myself an injection of insulin. These steps don't affect my blood sugar immediately, so the alarm may sound a couple of times. Thank you for your understanding.

And now for my paradigm,....Speech and Debate is an exercise in communication. Judges have to understand your words and process your ideas.

Don't make your judge(s) work. Your logic should be front and center and clear; judges shouldn't have to look for it. I'm looking for a "red thread of logic". The other side of the debate will attempt to cut your thread of logic and you will attempt to knot those ends to reconnect your thread. Sometimes speech and debaters cut their own thread (not enunciating, speaking too quickly, swallowing taglines, using jargon and acronyms). Debaters, your responsibility is to present ideas and supporting evidence and to help me understand your case. It is not a judge's responsibility to "figure out" your case and logic (or lack thereof).

Policy Debaters Take Note: I do NOT consult evidence you provide via email or some such. I judge solely on the evidence you state in speeches and then only to the extent I comprehend your words and process your ideas. After all, I can't judge based on what I do not understand.)

I am open to any argument, as long as it makes sense and is backed up with evidence. The tagline must be what the card actually says.

In rounds, my main pet peeve is unclear tag lines. Be sure that you clearly enunciate the tagline if you want me to take it into account.

For critiques and theoretical arguments, make sure you clearly explain both the argument and its implications.

I try to be open-minded and fair about any arguments presented.

I did debate for 4 years.

I believe in weighing.

Email me your cards: ethandigi@gmail.com

I have been coaching debate, speech, interp, and congress since 2011. I am pretty open to most types of debate, but I have some specific requirements for the individual debates and overall.

All Debates

Flow: I am generally a flow judge unless the event dictates otherwise. For PF, LD, and CX I will decide my win based on my flow.

Speed: I am fine with speed. That being said, I do expect to understand your SPEECH while you are giving it. If your speed causes you to slur words, not be understandable, or go too fast to make the round enjoyable, I will take off speaker points.

Courtesy: I expect a level of courtesy from all debaters at all times. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer. I also expect those answering questions to not waste time and actually answer with that in mind. Any form of discrimination WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in argumentation or in remarks to one another. I will give you the loss and report you to tab if you make sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or any other sort of discriminatory remarks. Additionally, I expect you to treat your opponents with respect. Calling them "liars" or implying or saying they are a worse debater than you is not a way to get on my good side.

Abusive Debate: I am a pretty intelligent lady, so I expect you to not tell me what is on the ballot and follow what is on the ballot in the round. Focus on the debate, not reading to me what the ballot says. I can entertain some theory debate, but if you spend the whole round on that and not debating the topic at hand (or actively K'ing it in a way that is effective), you've lost me. Calling your opponent abusive without providing substantial support won't win you anything in my book, but remember, you should be able to win on the merits of the debate itself.

Weighing: I appreciate active weighing of impacts in rounds; however, I do not immediately jump to a nuclear war impact or extinction impact without CLEAR LINKS that the resolution will make that happen. We live in a world where those things are possible by just walking outside, so I need to see the WHY of these arguments specific to the debate itself.

Tech/Truth: I will be honest- I am more of a "truth" person. I believe in discussing real-world issues in the round. However, I appreciate tech arguments as long as they actually fit within the confines of the debate.

Evidence: Clipping or misconstruing evidence will earn you the loss.

Specific Debates

Public Forum: I expect good speaking in public forum and accessibility to what you are saying. Public Forum needs to be as much about analysis and rhetoric as it is about evidence. Do not run plans in Public Forum.

Lincoln-Douglas: I do expect some framework debate, and I do not think LD is a one-person policy round. There needs to be active engagement with the opposing side. I am not a HUGE fan of plans/counterplans in LD, but K’s are fine.

Policy: I am pretty much down for anything, but I expect you to engage with the opposing side. I am likely to vote on T, especially if a plan or counterplan is abusive. All that said, CX should still be organized and involve good speaking skills.

Big Questions and World Schools- I expect this to be a respectful debate that resembles a conversation about the topic rather than an attack on your opponent.

I have done policy debate for 3 years at St. Andrew's Episcopal Schools.

Just have fun and be respectful to your opponent.

I was a high school policy debater, college IPDA debater, and now lawyer. That being said, I can tolerate most styles of debate, but ask that in the age of Covid and online tournaments, you be sure to be as clear as possible when speaking. Even though you normally may be able to go faster, if you can't be as clear, it may benefit you to slow down a bit.

I like big picture, impact calc, why we win analysis. If you run a K but can't evaluate it within the round, I'm not going to evaluate it for you.

At the top, I would greatly prefer if you sent me case docs so I could follow along during round and easily reference arguments and specific cards at my leisure. Sending thosesusom.hait@gmail.comas early as you can before round it would be optimal. Outside of that, do include me in the email chain if one is made.

Throughout High School I competed primarily in PF on the national circuit. I went to NSDA twice in PF, was a State Champion in the event, and competed in multiple nat circuit tournaments.

Despite this, I don't really like theory and arguments of this nature very much. If you explain it well enough and make me interested I might vote on theory, but don't hold out too much hope. You stand a much better chance of winning if you stick to relevant on case arguments.

I have a pretty high tolerance for speed, but you need to make sure you're clear if you're going to speak at a quicker pace.

I also want to see frontlining occur in the right speeches. (this primarily means 2nd team rebuttal addressing the 1st team rebuttal and not waiting until summary to frontline) If you fail to address an argument at the right time and your opponent says you don't bring up a response, I'm gonna drop whatever argument was attacked without a second thought.

Most importantly, be civil when you debate. Don't try to harass your opponent, intentionally talk over them, or flex that you're some debate genius. Winning one debate round in high school isn't so big a deal where trying to fight the opponent in round. Debate is about discourse before anything else, so act in a way that best suits delivering knowledge.

For LD and Policy, most of the same things apply. Remember to be coherent with clear arguments.

I am a college student that competed in debate for six years from 7th - 12th grade. For debate I have no problem with speed, but please make sure I can understand points that are very important to your case. If is a key point, emphasize it and enunciate. I will only judge based off of what is said in the round. If you want me to know or do something you must tell me and make it painfully obvious to me what you want me to do. Please use supporting evidence in your arguments. If your argument doesn't have any supporting evidence or data, I will not take it as seriously as an argument with supporting evidence.

Hi! My name is Ryder and I am currently a Senior at St. Andrews Episcopal School in Ridgeland Mississippi. I have been involved in Speech and Debate since 7th Grade. I have primarily participated in PF and LD but I have also done Congress, Big Questions, Extemp, Impromptu, Prose, OO, and Pro Con Challenge.

I love this activity and personally, it has done so much for me which is why I also love to judge it! But enough about me let's get into the specifics:

Jude Style: I am a flow judge. I also believe in Tech>Truth (Unless you are just blatantly lying or misrepresenting your card).

General Debate:

1) I have very little experience with Policy and LD, but I am by no means a lay judge. With that being said do not try and put lay judge tricks past me. If you try and say your opponent clean dropped and arg and they clearly didn't that will not bode well with you. Speaking of drops make sure you clean extend evidence through all speeches. If you drop your arg in a rebuttal and then don't bring it up again then I will not flow that to you (Applies to evidence as well). So please make sure you clean extend your arguments.

2) I cannot stress this enough but please ARTICULATE when you speak. I personally do not like speed in debate events however I can still understand it. Just please make sure that you say your words with clarity and I can undoubtedly understand the words that come out of your mouths. (If I do not understand or miss something because you are not articulating your words then I will not flow it through).

3) Make sure that our arguments make sense. This might sound self-explanatory but please make sure you have a clear link chain throughout your case. It makes the debate 1000x times better.

4) As far as timing goes please do not go over the 5-second grace. I know for PF at least 4 minutes is not enough time (trust me I go over sometimes too) but please do not go over the grace. I will just stop paying attention to anything after that. It is extremely unfair to your opponents.

5) Do not be racist, homophobic, sexist, or transphobic. You will instantly lose.

6) In PF and LD I do not like Theory or K's. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. So please, do not run them.

Hi Everyone!

Background

I have experience in VLD (both local and circuit). I'm currently a first year at Vandy studying Medicine, Health, and Society (possibly prelaw or premed).

How to Win My Ballot

- I love a good a framework debate. If you're engaging framework and making extensions throughout the round to prove why your framework is important, I am much more likely to vote for you.

- If you say anything ridiculously discriminatory in round, that will warrant in automatic L. I will not tolerate it. Period.

- I can flow spreading, but I don't like it.

- I'm not voting for an argument just because it's in your case. That would require me to engage in too much critical thinking. The more work you do to convince me that your argument has an impact (magnitude, scope, time frame), the easier my job becomes.

- Please outline clear voters and signpost.

Up to date for Harvard 2/18/23

Please time yourselves I will forget to start the timer and we will all be sad.

I did CX for several years in high school, but I have little judging experience since and I am not familiar with current topics. That means I know what is going on in the debate, but you should not assume I know positions/abbreviations/jargon for this topic.

As for voting: I do not have a strong and consistent framework. I am willing to write an RFD on almost* any well-argued, well-supported, and reasonable position. One of the best things you can do for yourself is tell me how I should vote. This requires more than just stating harms and watching me write them down. Why should I be more concerned by pro's X than by con's Y? Give me good reasons (and evidence) to care about your claims. The caveat is that you shouldn't tell me I should prioritize {insert something horribly unethical}. I won't and you will be wasting your time.

*My only hard requirement is that the debate is approached by everyone in the room with the goal of creating a respectful, equitable, enjoyable, and educational experience. This goal can and should coexist with wanting to win the debate. This is both a hard rule (if you are blatantly disrespectful to your opponent, I will stop the debate and follow tournament procedures and be sad and be mad at you) and a guiding principle (I will value highly a team that is kind. It won't win you the debate but it will make me like you more).

Also, don't cheat.

Hello, I’m Khalil Jackson! In high school, I mainly competed in Congressional Debate but have some experience in all debate events. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (k_k_jackson@outlook.com) and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am usually okay with some speed but not too much. If you want to speed up as the round goes on, we can try it out. I will be more forgiving when it comes to clarity and will say clear as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution; however, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I have a habit of giving non-verbal cues, but do not mistake them as an indication that I agree with you. They only indicate that I understand the point you are trying to make, not necessarily that I buy what you are saying.

I am a huge fan of Hip-Hop, grew up listening to all the classics. One of the most important artists in Hip-Hop and my favorite is Nas. So, if you are able to work in a reference (the lyric and the song), I will definitely boost your speaker points!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

Hello! My name is Anna (she/they). I was a high school debater for 4 years competing in primarily PF, Worlds, Poetry, and Informative Speaking. I have also experienced and have knowledge in Congressional Debate, Prose, and Duo Interpretation.

My goal as your judge is to make sure that you feel comfortable, are able to take away something important from the round, and have fun! As such, feel free to contact me about any questions you have through my email (annakang613@gmail.com).

Now, here is some important judging criteria for the following events:

Overall Comments for Debate:

- Please speak a bit slower. This allows me to write as much as you want me to judge. Refrain from spreading if you can, and I'll note in the round if you are speaking too fast for me to write. I want to at least get as much as I can to properly judge.

- If you go overtime in your speech, know that I won't flow from that point. Additionally, just know you are keeping yourself from ending the round earlier than you would be.

- (Just my own little pet peeve) I will want you all to refrain from saying, "my opponent made a mistake" or anything that sounds like you are directing comments to your opponents. I want you to focus on the arguments, not directing the mistakes to the opponent. This won't change any differences in points, but it might just be a little thorn on my side throughout the round.

PF:
This is a debate that needs evidence but most importantly elaboration and ability to translate that evidence to your argumentation. I don't want the debate to be based on spreading and ultimately getting confused on what the opponents are arguing. Make sure you are speaking clearly and clarifying your argumentation along the way to win the round. Here are some other things I want you to note:

- I need you to weigh. I am going to heavily emphasize on the fact that I want to see the summary speech be used to not only clear up some misunderstandings, but also be the key deciding factor of the weighing aspects of the round.

- Argumentation should be carried throughout the round. From rebuttal, to summary, and finally final focus. If I don't see that trend, then I can't carry your argument until the very end. Make sure to collapse when you need to, and plan accordingly so you don't get overwhelmed at the end. It makes it easier for me to judge as well.

- I will not be flowing cross. I will still listen in and see how you all act during that time, but I will only flow the content that was taken from that time if you bring it up in your other speeches.

- I will default to a cost/benefit analysis framework if none are given at the beginning of the round. Please make sure to provide argumentation as to why your framework should stand if you are going to provide one. If your opponents are able to adequately answer to it or negate the reason for why we need such a framework, then I won't consider it.

LD:

TBH, I sadly don't know much about this field. All I know is that you have to substantially provide evidence for your value and criterion with your contentions. Follow the comments above if I am your judge for LD, and I will do my best.

Congress:

If I ever judge this, just know that I want to see professionalism, funny remarks, and good speeches. I also really appreciate good questions, since this tells me you are paying attention.

Policy:

I don't know much about this debate form as much, but I will do my best to follow, so bare with me as I try my best. You guys have lots of time in comparison to other debate forms, but I understand the feel and need to fit more information during that time as well. Make the debate not as a speed-race for how many words you can get in, but I would like to see the arguments getting thrown back and forth and engaged with by both teams. Similar to my points in PF, I will judge most of the arguments based on those particular points made above.

Worlds:

If I ever judge this, I can provide more specific comments before round. Most importantly, I want to see teamwork and flowed argumentation throughout the 3 speeches. I love to see how future speeches will respond to the ones that happened earlier and provide answers to certain substantives. Clever remarks and team lines will also give extra points from me.

Overall Comments for Speech:

- Show how much you are passionate for your topic and event. This can differ from each event, but if I see that particular enthusiasm for the topic, you can definitely pull me in and keep me on my toes.

- Speak clearly

- I will provide hand signals and give you ones that I think are necessary for that particular event. If you have specific signals that you would like, feel free to ask me to do them! I have a phone timer for that reason :)

- If you have any more questions, feel free to ask before you begin!

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

Hi, I’m Neely! I use she/her pronouns. Please inform me of your preferred pronouns (if you’re comfortable) so I can address you properly. I competed in speech and debate for 4 years in a variety of events, primarily speech and debate events. I will not tolerate any kind of ad hominem arguments, hate speech, slurs, charged language, etc. Make sure your arguments are clear and understandable to all, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!

I'm very tabula rasa and expect the debaters to do the work for me rather than having me trying to piece everything together. Ideally, I'm looking for you to cross the t's & dot the i's rather than having me do it for you – claim, warrant, impact- contextualization, weighing, impact analysis

I am fine with speed.

Policy/CX/LD :

Run whatever you want: DA's, CP's, K's, T, Theory

I have no pre determined opinion about certain args such as condo good/bad

Don't worry about coming across as rude in cross

PF:

New args in FF will not be evaluated

Try not to speak over each other in GCX

email - vl15 at rice dot edu (please add to the email chain)

Have any questions? Ask me.

I did policy debate at St. Andrew's Episcopal School in Mississippi from 2016 to 2020. I also did a semester of NPDA at Rice University.

Here are some of my general thoughts about debate:

- I believe that debate is primarily an educational activity. I have no problem intervening when argumentation or discourse is harmful to the debate space.

- Outside of the above, though, I feel my role as an adjudicator is to allow debaters to debate how they're comfortable debating - my role is not to impose my predispositions about debate upon others. I will attempt to intervene as little as possible to make a decision.

- That being said, I am predisposed to grant greater credence to clearly articulated and warranted arguments that advance a coherent theory/understanding of how the world functions. I am indifferent as to what mechanism/framework you utilize to advance these arguments.

- To me, the most persuasive speeches have been the ones where people take the time to dwell on important framing issues in the round and provide compelling analysis as to why they're winning there in a straightforward manner.

Policy Affs

- I feel that there is stronger value to "defensive" arguments than most. It should be possible to win that an affirmative doesn't solve or that there is zero risk of a link to the disadvantage.

- I think that solvency deficits and internal-link takeouts are underutilized and help minimize policy affs well.

- Many policy affirmatives contain, at best, tenuously constructed internal links; teams ought to be unafraid to exploit these weaknesses.

Critical Affs/Framework

- You should be prepared to explain your methodology clearly. I am fine with non-policy affirmatives being read, but I am less experienced in evaluating these (that doesn't mean you shouldn't read them if that's what you do!).

- Even if the affirmative doesn't affirm the resolution, it is better if it relates to the topic in some manner.

- I'm not all that convinced that procedural fairness is intrinsically valuable, but it is probably an internal link to several important impacts (clash education, the collapse of debate, etc.).

Disadvantages

- Specific analysis is important in selling your scenario. Be detailed in your explanation of the link level and the rest will hopefully follow.

- I prefer that you contextualize the disadvantage to the affirmative; even if you have generic links, explain how they implicate the affirmative ("turns case" arguments help mitigate external offense from the affirmative!).

Counterplans

- Most counterplans are alright, although I think that process CPs and international fiat are questionable. Delay counterplans are likely abusive.

- Clever counterplans are fun but are probably not very theoretically legitimate. That being said, there's nothing wrong with a good theory debate.

- Conditionality is probably good (to an extent).

Theory/Topicality

- I default to competing interpretations.

- Good procedural debates are well-organized, well-warranted, and contain good impact weighing. I like these debates.

Critiques

- Teams that read Ks well are able to (1) explain their theory clearly, (2) explain how their theory directly problematizes the affirmative/the affirmative's theory of the world, and (3) explain how their alternative praxis directly resolves these problematizations.

- I may not have more than a surface-level understanding of your theory.

- Framework is probably important for both the aff and the neg in these rounds.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

Debates tournaments were not a part of my schooling and thus I am not very versed in technical issues with debate tournaments. So I value clarity of argument and speech. Thus fast speech is something that hinders my understanding of what the participant is trying to present. Well-paced speech which is clear in content is valued more than fast speech with more content. I also like to have participant keep their own time. If possible presenting links of reference in the chatbox are prefered.

I am a graduated senior at St. Andrew’s Episcopal school. I competed in Public Forum in 6th-8th grade and I currently compete in Lincoln Douglas debate, Prose interp, Dramatic interp, Duo inerp, Original Oratory, and congressional debate (a lot I know).

Debate: I do not particularly like spreading I think that it is often used as a tactic to cause confusion so that your opponent does not have the ability to respond but if you do spread be sure to read taglines clearly and annunciate your words as well as share your case with me as well as your opponent. My favorite part of debate is cross examination and if you can get some really good question in there you set yourself for a good round in my world. With that being said respond directly to your opponents questions if you don’t know the answer I prefer you say you don’t know rather than wasting time circling around the question. My main voting point will more than likely be based upon how well you respond to your opponents case and impact weighing.

Speech: I really enjoy Speech events this year i competed in 4. my main events are Duo interp and Original Oratory. in speeches i look for clarity and inflection. if your speech/ speaking voice is flat you wont rank well. I enjoy funny pieces but i really like when funny pieces still have a message i think that presenting a message and teaching something is the point of speech and debate. for duo i really look for partner chemistry and a good flow int he cutting and blocking. that being said blocking isn't enough there needs to be some good acting. acting outweighs tech. for platform events: clarity, posture, inflections, tone, speech organization.

I debated Public Forum for four years in HS and attempted to compete in Prose for a semester during my Senior year.

Overarching things:

Truth > Tech: All of us can pretty much agree, most of the arguments we read in PF are hypotheticals so I generally evaluate the round based on what's presented regardless of the truthfullness of the argument. Saying that, if you're gonna try to convince me that aliens exist or the Illuminati have my mind in a vat, you'd better have some pretty convincing evidence. Remember, the more realistic your argument, the more likely I am to value it more highly in the round.

Frameworks: I default to a cost/benefit analysis framework. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell my why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments (ie one is an economic impact and one is a democracy impact) I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Crossfire: I will NOT flow cross. Cross is a way for debaters to clarify arguments with each other, so arguments or ideas presented in cross must be extended throughout the rest of the debate. Don't use cross as an extra speech, use it for setup for later speeches.

Other things:
- When time stops, flowing stops. Speaking over the time limit will not add anything to the flow or factor into my RFD
- Quality over Quantity; avoid spreading if possible
- If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. It is your job as a debater to present yourself in a clear manner to me, so if you speak to quickly, to a point where I cannot understand you, you will lose speaks and my flow won't contain all the arguments you mention.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense
- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
- Cross fire should be an exchange b/w the two debaters. I don't want long speeches in it.
- Star Wars references are greatly appreciated and will gain some clout with me.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before we start the round/email me at dfroger1@go.olemiss.edu

Good luck and make the most of every round!

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I default techy truth>tech/truth. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. During the time of virtual tournaments, I am going to need for you to slow it down a bit. If you want to gradually get faster as the round goes, that is fine. I will say clear as often as I need. After coaching and judging debates, I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, mention that in the signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed argument to many. However, its your world. Just don't assume I got everything you said.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

Harvard Update

Tech Issues: Be sure to make a local recording of your speeches. If you disconnect, this will be the only way that I will evaluate the content of that speech. I find this to be the most equitable way to deal with this issue.

Theory: I am a firm believer in the power of theory to check abuse in debate. We need it. When done correctly it is truly one of my favorite arguments to evaluate in rounds. More often than not, they end in one side being called some ad hominem, then a cat fight about what happened in pre-round prep ensues. Sigh. So what I am going to do is set up how I evaluate theory, period. You have a shot at convincing me to evaluate it differently, but you will have to be very persuasive.

I default competing interpretations. I don't think that is too hard to do. If you have offense about how violating the interp means your opponent is racist, sexist, abelist. I am going to hold that interpretation to the ultimate degree. These type of accusations matter. We live in a society where these isms affect peoples lives. I do not deny the impact that they have in this debate space, as one of my favorite coaches likes to say, "I have the receipts". However PSAs addressed as Theory shells(and to the same degree Ks) do not warrant my ballot. As a result, ink based concessions do not replace work here. Show me how violating the interpretation leads to the voters you claim. I need this in theory debates! If we are going to discuss good norms for debate, I think that we shouldn't be disingenuous and claim that our norm is what black, queer, womxn, trans, people with disabilities, etc. NEED to make debate a safe place for them. There are quite a few structures that exist in debate that makes life hard for a lot of people, your shell will not solve it. If I don't feel as though following the interp resolves the voters, I am not voting on the shell, period. As the debater who introduces theory, you have the obligation to convince me that your interp is the norm we should follow. I am just not going to check in for conceded theory without a good ballot story anymore.

Jude Sims-Barber, as featured on https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-public-in-public-forum?source_location=search

Hello debaters! I’m a university student studying philosophy and sociology, and was a debater throughout high school for three years. My main proficiency was with Lincoln-Douglas debate and Congressional debate but I am very familiar with Public Forum, Policy, and IDPA debate (and, to a lesser extent, British Parliament and World Schools Debate).

I use any and all pronouns and my email is njudesims@gmail.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: I have minor hearing loss. My inner ear tissue is scarred and my speech perception is affected as a result. This is not an issue of volume, it is an issue of clarity and enunciation. As a result, I cannot understand spreading. It is simply out of my ear's reach. And before you ask, no, you don't magically have the perfectly understandable spreading cadence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Notes (please read):

Debate is educational first and foremost. Yes, it is competitive (a "game"), but you should always debate in good faith and not use cheap arguments or tricks just to win. Try to understand your opponent and their arguments, and try to make the debate reach a point of conclusion rather than simply making cheap dunks or disingenuous attacks. Communication relies on mutual trust and a desire to learn, not a desire to dominate or win.

Truth over tech. Techy truth is generally fine. I will not disclose. I don't have time to argue with high schoolers about why they lost.

While I understand the desire to make as many arguments as possible, the default should be using an ordinary, pedestrian speed to communicate well-researched ideas. Do not be disingenuous, either in the arguments you choose to run (knowing that they're designed or cut in a manner to disorient your opponent) or the way you explain/extend them.

-Stay topical. You chose to come to this tournament, you paid the entry fee, you know the topic. It's different when academics decide to discuss the weaknesses of our discourse models or the symbolic violence inherent in... English syntax. You aren't an academic, you're a high schooler competing in a competitive tournament you voluntarily signed up for--debate what the resolution says.

Time limits exist as a statement of how long the statements you need to make should take. They are not an excuse to cram as much stuff into that time by spreading.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Lincoln-Douglas:

-Keep it traditional. The most engaging LD debates are those that speak in concrete terms about abstract ideas, using what we examine on a surface level (mere political issues) and revealing hidden moral assumptions or frameworks (theory).

-Is is not ought. Merely because something is the case in the real world says nothing about whether such a thing is morally justified. No, you don't have the solution to the is-ought gap.

-You must have a Value and Criterion. Lincoln Douglas is all about framing topics with an ethical framework. When we say that something is moral or immoral, we must do so with an ethical framework (i.e., consequentialism, deontology, etc.). A value of Morality is meaningless, as the purpose of LD is to normatively prescribe a special importance to a particular value or good (it tells me nothing as a judge if you value morality. You might as well say "it is good to do good things and bad to do bad things").

-Ethical theories are not values. You cannot 'value' utilitarianism--it is an ethical framework through which we quantify or evaluate that which we hold important. We can examine the utility of 'positive freedom' as a value, but we cannot simply value utilitarianism.

-Avoid criteria that are bulkily worded ("ensuring healthcare access" or something similar). Try to limit criteria to established philosophies, ideas, methods, or theories.

-I highly value philosophical consistency and a solid understanding of the philosophical ideas and ethical theories argued for. I know judge intervention is frowned upon, but if you misrepresent a philosophical position or idea, it will be hard for me to trust your proclaimed level of expertise on the topic. Simple mistakes are perfectly okay, as a lot of philosophy is rather impenetrable.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Public Forum:

-PF is not policy. You used to be prohibited from citing evidence in PF until after Ted Turner sponsored it. PF is the lay debate in high school circuits. Keep it simple. To clarify, I do expect you to use evidence, but also your own proficiency for debate.

-If you know a piece of evidence is deeply flawed or even wrong, why run it on the chance that your opponent won't know how to respond? Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

-I'm primarily a flow judge, and I care deeply about clear statements of arguments and rebuttals. If you don't signpost, I'll likely miss it. Tech mainly bores me, so do try to make quality arguments--if you make bad arguments, then I won't prefer them solely because the opposing team couldn't mention the sixth drop of the fourth subpoint in a three minute speech. If the argument is bad, then it's bad--simple as. (By bad, I mean poorly explained, incoherent, frivolous, or cheap.) Drops are only a point in your favor insofar as the dropped argument is actually substantial to the overall debate.

-Focus on broader impacts. Remember that the burden of the CON is not to propose any comprehensive plan of action, merely demonstrate why the PRO is ineffective or harmful.

-Do not spend too much time on one specific point with one specific point of evidence. Give weight to what's important. Collapse by the end. The earlier, the better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Big Questions:

-Big questions is a descriptive debate, which means that you are debating on what is (descriptive) rather than what ought be the case (normative). What this means is that you are, on aff or neg, answering the big question at hand. What's more, big questions require big answers, and any reasonably big answer contains quite a lot of philosophy. Your case should include some measure of balance between raw theoretical material (philosophy, broadly) and hard science. Depending on the topic, you might lean more to one side (e.g., objective morality exists vs. humans are naturally self-interested).

-In my experience (for the few years BQ has been around), disputes over evidence in BQ shouldn't be boiled down to "well our sources disagree." Generally, a dispute around a big question is epistemological, about how we come to know things and how certain that knowledge really is. For example, saying that "humans are naturally protective of their young" is not really disagreeable on a factual basis, but whether that information is significant as to whether humans are self-interested is a matter of specific theoretical framing and definition.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Policy:

-Don't spread. If you go too fast, I'll say 'clear' until you slow down. This has resulted in me saying clear within the entire 8 minutes of a speech, so please do slow down.

-Please do not force me to rely on an email chain to decide the round.

-On T: I am pretty lenient when it comes to whether a plan/counterplan is topical or not. My standard for determining this is whether or not the plan fits in what I conceive as the "spirit of the resolution." Something may not be strictly topical as per the verbiage of the resolution, but is still topical as it fits the resolution's intended spirit as written. The only times I will flatly reject a plan on topicality is (1) if it is too large in scope, as to encompass the resolution rather than the other way around, or (2) it is so disconnected from the topic that it may as well be a non-sequitur. As an additional note, please don't waste time making a bunch of topicality arguments. It is often time-consuming.

-K's are most commonly a cheap trick, in my view--I know that they're used topic to topic and round to round with little change, as a means to minimize exhaustive prep and real engagement with the topic. The only exception I'll give is to specific instances of abolition/discourse K's, in which you argue (in good faith, I'll be able to tell) that the verbiage or framing of the resolution overly limits available/acceptable discourse. Regardless, don't anticipate a vote in a K's favor. You signed up for this tournament, after all, and your decision to sidestep the topic reflects at least partially on your intellectual honesty.

I am a newer parent judge who has enjoyed this responsibility over the last year. I will listen to both arguments and make a fair and unbiased opinion based on the facts, and who seems to have the better argument. I expect participants to be respectful to one another while expressing their opinion and being passionate about it. I expect that you will be prepared for the debate and not fumble through the presentation. Bonus points for those that show evidence to their argument and can prove it relates to the topic at hand. If a participant makes a false statement, I expect the other side to argue and point it out in cross examination. If you speak to fast that i can't understand you, then you will lose the round. Please stay within the time allow, and if you go over excessively each time, I will count it against you.

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

Hey everyone, I go by Chris for ease, pronouns are he/him. I'm a student at Georgetown University and competed heavily in forensics in high school, including final rounds at NSDA, NCFL, Harvard, Emory. I had some state championships as well, competing with St. Andrew's Episcopal School and with Sacred Heart Catholic School in Mississippi. I also did Mock Trial at the national level. In college, I have done a fair share of APDA. Most of my national circuit experience was in PA events, but the two high schools I competed with were debate-oriented and interp-oriented respectively, so I have ample experience working with national-level competition in the fields. Excited to be judging and hope I can make things easy for everyone.

Speech:

Paradigms for PA/interp are uncommon because evaluation is rather standardized, but know that I value polish and comfort -- not a fan of plasticity. Be real, make well-founded arguments, and do your best to make me feel engaged with the topic. Interpers, do your thing! I like pushing the boundaries of what is considered acceptable, so long as it is done in a respectful way. I'll let you interpret that statement as you will. Pun intended.

i will be blunt with my comments sometimes because i think that is most effective.

i am also a sucker for spongebob

Also, if I mess up on time signals, I won't dock you for it. Promise.

Debate:

I am fine with speed and progressive debate, but if you're going to spread hard, either send me your case to read along or be sure you spend enough time clearly articulating your important points to ensure I get it on the flow.

Good with theory as well, but don't assume I'll do the work for you of deciding why your theory wins the debate. Not a big fan of deciding the debate based on short one-line remarks or arguments that were briefly touched upon but not fully developed.

I value truth and practicality. I've done parli in college, so I love out-of-the-box arguments, but give me good warranting. It all really just boils down to claim, warrant, impact, and evaluate. Evidence is important. I will happily vote on topicality, K's, or theory. If you're curious, I did every style of debate save Big Questions in high school, so I won't be one of those PF-only judges who despise philosophy.

Be kind, stick to your time limits, and have a meaningful debate.

I did public forum throughout high school, so I am comfortable with flowing the round and will make my decisions based on the flow. For the final focus (and the rest of the debate), I want the debaters to weigh the impacts for me directly. If one team weighs the impacts of both worlds, and the other team does not, I will be forced to vote for the the former, even if I consider their impacts less important. For the impacts, I will judge them on both their likelihood and their magnitude (I would love it if you considered both of these explicitly and individually). This means that quantifying your impacts is great but only if you clearly articulate the probability of it, so the warrant and the evidence are equally important for me. If this means that one of your impacts outweighs the rest of your case, it might make sense to concentrate exclusively on that argument in the final focus. Speed: I cannot flow properly if a debater is spreading, but I am comfortable with most everything short of that. I like to see reduced speed in the second half of the debate since evidence has mostly been established and the debate is being crystallized.

Hey, I'm noa (they/them), a college freshman with 4 yrs of national debate experience under my belt.

Generally, if I'm judging you, I'm not gonna take your outfit into consideration. The norm of wearing suits kinda excludes those without an expendable income? So just look professional, but I'm never gonna dock you points for something out of your control. This also goes for a sore throat, stuffy nose, or lost voice. It does help to let me know before the round though. Also, if you need to leave after your speech, you don't need to ask me!! Trust me, I've been there, so I understand needing to leave for whatever reason.

Here's what u need to know (for debate):

• Above all else, be respectful, please. I will drop you (and your speaks) instantly if I hear anything hateful in your case, rebuttal, or any of your other speeches. Debate needs to be a space for people to express themselves, and if you take that away from those people, you won't be getting my ballot.

• With that out of the way, I'll buy any traditional argument (that isn't hateful, obviously) that is well-supported with evidence and plenty of warranting. I don't really understand progressive debate arguments, but I won't drop you for running them. Just read them slowly and make them make sense, because, despite four years in LD, I never fully grasped progressive args.

• Have all your sources ready in case they're challenged, just because it saves time.

• Cross-Ex isn't binding unless you make an argument that it is. IE - if your opponent concedes something in cross-ex, you need to point that out to me in a speech for me to weigh it in my decision.

• IF UR IN A RUSH READ THIS: To win, you're gonna want to write my ballot for me in your last speech. I'm a huge fan of line-by-line rebuttals, as I keep a pretty detailed flow, so if you point out everything your opponent drops, and that matches with my flow, that's all the more reason to vote for you. If you're going to collapse, convince me why I should buy it. In your final speech, please provide either a comparative worlds analysis and go deep into the impact calc, or at the very least give me some solid voter reasons.

• Also?? have fun. You're spending your weekend here, why not have fun with it? Be personable in your speeches, keep me interested, and make me care about what you say. Just don't yell at me (please). lol.

• Speaks are usually pretty ableist so I'll start at a 28 and will try and keep it in the range of 26-30. That being said, if you throw in a League joke or make a clever movie/anime reference, and I laugh at it, I'll bump your speaks up a point.

IF IM JUDGING POLICY, IM SORRY :(

send email chain to noaburnerlol@gmail.com

Hey! My name is Faraaz Yousuf, I mostly did Policy in high school with a little bit of LD. I look forward to judging your debates!

Just some top-level things, don't be rude, don't be unethical with evidence (i.e. falsifying, clipping, etc.), really just make sure to be respectful during rounds and there shouldn't be any issues at all.

Policy Debate/General Paradigm

Good organization and clarity are extremely important. Make sure your arguments are well explained, and having a consistent structure in your speech helps immensely with judging a debate. Be thorough with your arguments, make sure you lead me through why you're winning the round. Make sure you do impact calculus, things like weighing probability and magnitude. I'm down to vote for most arguments, just explain. Be persuasive.

Speed is fine, do make sure you're being clear as well. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing. It should be pretty clear when I either stop typing or writing things down. *As a later addendum to this I've been a little removed from judging debate and don't quite have the same ear for spreading, I should still comprehend you for the most part but I would def take it down a notch, or at least ramp up in speed as a speech or round progresses to allow me to better acclimate to the speed (which is also a good tip in general in my experience debating).

I try to avoid giving nonverbal cues, but reactions do slip out of me sometimes so do keep an eye out for that.

I'll try my best to evaluate rounds based on the approaches articulated in them, but I do tend to default to a policy-making perspective when nothing else is offered. I'm open to other approaches, just the explanation should be clear, though that should be ideal for any argument in a debate.

I feel like I tend to lean truth over tech, but as long as theory arguments have a well-developed explanation I'm perfectly comfortable voting for them. Just because I tend to lean truth doesn't mean you can hand wave away any theory arguments.

I think K's are good, I just may not extremely familiar with whatever literature you're basing it off of so the explanation may have to be a little more in-depth for me to get it.

I like to think I'm decently equipped to judge most rounds if you have any questions at all feel free to ask me before the round starts!