Noback,+Becky

My name is Becky Noback. I debated for Green Valley High School for four years, and have continued to judge tournaments past my competitive days. The debates that I had the most competitive experience with during that time were Congress and Policy, though I have judged every other form of debate since.

With a combined eight years of experience in the debate world, I say that my judging style is more versatile than anything. I am quick to adapt to different speech orders and times, I can grasp a resolution with little trouble, but overall, I am more of a stickler for clash during debates. I want to see the debaters effectively counter the points of the other team. I want there to be an intellectually-stimulating debate; when teams bring up irrelevant counter arguments just to trip up the other team in hopes that they miss a point on the flow, it just looks like a cop-out to me. Counterpoints are heartily welcomed, but I prefer to see debaters take the arguments presented against them and their case head-on.

Cordiality is also a big part of my judging paradigm. If a debater is obtrusive, rude, or disrespectful in any way towards their opponent, I do not hesitate to factor this into my decision on the round. I consider this to include, but not be limited to: 
 * Talking during opponents' speeches
 * Distasteful cross-examination tactics (interruption, eye-rolling, name-calling)
 * Making any kind of disparaging comment about other debaters rather than said debaters' cases
 * Being distractingly late to the round
 * Inattentiveness during opponents' speeches

Overall, I'm just looking for an as-polite-as-possible, clash-filled round of fun debate. I am open to hearing any argument so long as it is relevant and progresses the debate.