I've been judging for 3 years now and enjoy it a lot. One of my biggest pet peeves is spreading. I am arguably the most anti-spreader judge on the circuit :') I want to learn the topics that are being debated and be able to discern who does a better job of articulating their case. If I can't understand what is being said, it's difficult for me to be able to do that.

Former policy debater at George Mason University, and current graduate student at UNC Chapel Hill. I did policy debate at the college level for over 1 year, and have been judging policy, LD, PF, and big questions debate for 4 years.

My educational background: B.A. in Government and International Politics. Dual Masters in City and Regional Planning (specialization: Housing) and Public Health (specialization: health equity) currently ongoing.

Email: japril@email.unc.edu. If you have questions about my decision that weren't answered during RFD, feel free to email me and I will hopefully be able to answer. I'll keep my flows and notes for up to two weeks after the tournament concludes, so then would be the best time to email me.

I'd like to be included on the email chain please and thanks! The japril@email.unc.edu email will be best for me, but if this doesn't work you can use jordanapril72@gmail.com.

My number one thing is that you should be respectful. No insults, slurs, or disrespecting the other team members. I also will not be pleased if the evidence you read is openly harmful (i.e. homophobic/racist/sexist/transphobic arguments, etc.).

I don't do the whole shaking hands thing. This is not a way to disrespect you - this is a very much "it's not you, it's me" thing. (This was written before COVID, RIP)

Open cross-ex is fine. If this is a virtual tournament though, use more discretion. I have a low tolerance for talking over each other.

Spreading is fine. I should be able to keep up with faster speeches just fine. However if it is during a virtual tournament, I may request slower speeches simply due to issues of audio quality/video buffering/etc.

I expect you and your partner to keep track of your prep time and speech times, and to keep the other team in check.

If you identify as a man and you have a female-identifying partner, you better have a good reason for cutting her off/interrupting her/talking over her during her speeches. If not, I will be very tempted to factor this into your speaker points, and definitely will if it becomes a recurring issue.

I am 100% fine with explaining my RFD and how I felt the debate went down. However after this, if you still don't agree with/like my decision, feel free to post-round me. But it won't change my decision, nor the fact that your arguments were wrong/outweighed/not clear enough. In your final speeches, the burden of proof is on you to make it clear just how your arguments resolve/outweigh/whatever. Don't make me have to do the work for you.

If u like music that isn't sung in English, pls let me know! I love hearing new music (I listen mostly to Russian indie/pop, French pop, Scandinavian metal, Arab indie, etc.)!!!!

Policy:

- If you drop an arg, I will definitely vote on that.

- Cross-ex is binding

- Genuinely extend your arguments, especially ones you intend to win on. Extend these arguments fully throughout the round - I won't vote on it if improperly extended or dropped in the last speeches.

- I am generally inexperienced in theory or topicality arguments and the like. So it's gotta be demonstrated to be pretty egregious or conceded entirely for it to matter much to me. It's not wise having solely an intricate theory vs. condo vs. whatever 2NR and 2AR with me as your judge. If that happens, you may not like my decision.

- You need to extend the warrants of your argument, not just the tags and author. I don't flow author, so I won't mark it as extended if you only mention the author name. And don't just say "cross-apply this author" to another argument - I will not know why it matters without you explaining how this card also answers whatever argument it's being applied to.

- Slow down when you read tags

- I'm a huge fan of analytics - feel free to use them. These can sometimes be far more effective than reading cards.

On Ks - I'm not a K debater so these are not my strong suit. If it is something beyond a more basic and familiar K, just make sure you explain how it links and its significance. I have no problem voting for a K if I can understand it. If it's high theory, be sure to explain it in full beyond the jargon from the specialty.

- Don't be cocky when reading a K. Don't think you're going to automatically win because you're reading a K that you're capable of reading blocks for. Don't just be one of those teams hoping that the big words and confusion will result in a win for you - that's a harmful means of debate. That will not bode well for you.

On DAs - Make sure you have clear impact calculus, and extend the essential arguments during the round. Use overviews! Don't merely rely on overviews to extend though, you still need to genuinely engage with any evidence read against it.

LD

- I'm okay with cards being read in round (with discretion of course)

- I'm more pro-traditional LD (focusing on morality) than I am the progressive/policy-oriented LD. I won't vote you down instantly because you decide to have big-stick impacts like nuclear war or read DAs or Ks on the negative, but use discretion. If one debater is using a traditional LD framework versus the extinction framing, it can be in the territory of abusive. So tl;dr: not the biggest fan but I won't penalize you for it unless there's a reason to.

- I can follow philosophical theory (such as Kant), but if you are referencing that basis, at least explain it throughout the round. What is the significance of this theory and concept?

- The personal views of the other debater don't really matter to me. So don't attack them on things like, say, them being okay with taxes. This is a waste of time, and I won't vote on any of the personal views of the debater unless they are openly racist, sexist, etc.

- I don't know fully all the rules of LD (i.e. what is considered a violation, is this stealing affirmative ground, etc.). If I'm your judge, then these are not your best strategies unless the opponent is being blatantly abusive in round.

PF

- Be clear, go in a logical order for line-by-line

- Please weigh! Make the decision easy for me and make sense! Don't make me have to do any of the work for you.

- If it's in your final focus, it should be in your summary. I won't evaluate any new arguments that appear in the final focus if they weren't found elsewhere in earlier speeches.

- Don't go for everything in the final focus and summary speeches. What are the best arguments you have, the arguments with the least offense, the arguments you feel most confident about? Go for those, prioritize those, and drop some of the other stuff that you feel less confident on. Concede non-uniqueness or other nullifying arguments from the con if you need to (like yeah we are solving miscalculation in the status quo or somethingggg).

- If you're extending a contention, extend all the key aspects of that contention. If for example you drop a link or you drop an impact, that makes it harder for me to evaluate and harder for you to win the round. You need all pieces of the pie to get there or else it'll taste like you forgot to add the sugar (bad metaphor - just roll with it).

- I weigh crossfire a little low on the hierarchy of important things coming from you or your partner's/opponent's mouths. If you think it's a big deal or the opponent concedes something big in crossfire or something, be sure to not only point it out in speeches but to explain why it matters.

- Don't be rude. I'll very much dock your speaks.

Big Questions

- If you even THINK about asking me about the time I've judged Big Questions, I will give you a maximum amount of 20 for your speaks.

I did LD for 2 years and coached for another two at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I am now coaching debate at Oakland Catholic High School, and this is my first year back in a few years.

I'll vote on anything. However, if you're going to go for something, it must be extended in each speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused it is because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but I don't flow it.

Be confident but don't be rude, there's a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow), but you need to have both in order to win the round.

I will let you know if you are going too fast.

If you have any specific questions let me know and I'll be sure to answer them before the round.

I debated Lincoln Douglas in my high school forensics team about 10 years ago and have judged periodically the past few years. I prefer relatively traditional style of debate, but won't mind if you run something more non-conventional. Speed is fine as long as you are understandable and you are doing it for a purpose that makes sense. Ultimately, you must show me how your value structure is what we must look to and how your side better upholds that value. When using cards to further your arguments, please have make your claim, warrant and impact explicit. Please remember to be courteous and professional to each other.

UPDATED 2/21/20: I do not judge as often as I may once have. At most local events, I find myself on the operations side of a tournament.

That should not terrify you – I am a career public servant, who happens to coach debate because I appreciate everything that it taught me as a student. You should assume that I approach debate rounds this way: what is the best decision I can make given the information presented to me?

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not wish to be on any email chains. I have sadly witnessed teams answering entire disadvantages not read by their opponents simply because they were included in said distribution. Not to be outdone, I have read ballots where judges voted on evidence that nobody read. I pledge to keep the best flow I can. If I need to see a piece of evidence, and the particular league or tournament's rules allow for that, I will call for it.

If you are short on time reading this, my paradigm can be expressed in six (6) words: do your thing and be nice. If you are really short on time, we can go with four (4): old guy, still flows.

Policy:

1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. I cannot vote on what I do not have typed/written down. I try hard to listen to the text of the evidence presented;
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. I do not mind an LD round that gets on down the flow;
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.

Public Forum/Speech:

1. Nothing earth-shattering here. I am less speed tolerant in public forum and I will simply apply the ballot criteria to whatever speech event is at hand.

Regardless of event, we enter the debate knowing the resolution and some basic rules of the road (e.g., speech times, likely printed on the ballot). By tabula rasa I mean that the debaters establish the framework for evaluating debates. You should do what you do best and do it well. Arguments should have three parts – a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style.

I still believe that good decisions should flow like water. Great rebuttals frame debates and clash wins rounds. My ballots will provide a succinct RFD, possibly pointing out either strengths or opportunities for improvement as we progress through the speeches. 3AR/3NR oral critiques nauseate me: what I say out loud (if disclosure is permitted) will almost certainly match what I am placing on your ballot. Your coach should see comments too. You did not go to the dentist; my RFD is never going to read “oral.”

Finally, be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges. I have zero tolerance for poor behavior in debate rounds.

I am a new judge. I don’t want speed, and no theory. I’m not familiar with complicated philosophies, and make sure and tell me exactly why you won the round.

Name: Sarah Blanton

Email: essie3blanton@gmail.com. If there is a chain, I would like to be on it.

School Affiliation: George Mason University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

Coaching Experience: I’ve coached Lincoln Douglas at Grafton High School for two years, but while I was competing/also a high schooler. I was the head lab leader for novice LD at Mason's camp summer 2019.

Occupation: Global Affairs major and second-year policy debater at George Mason, graduating 2021.

IN ROUND PREFERENCES:

Speed of Delivery: Whatever speed you prefer.

Format of Summary Speeches: I prefer line by line and detailed clash.

Role of the Final Focus: final speeches should conclude with impact calculus and offensive reasons to vote their way.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Because of my policy background, I am somewhat biased towards the policy mindset. I weigh arguments that appear in the final speech(es) much more heavily, and consider a dropped argument to be reasonably true, I understand there is limitations on extending EVERY argument you need in the final speech, but you should try to extend most of the arguments you plan to win the debate on in your final speech.

Topicality: I don’t have much experience judging PF topicality debates, so I will not be familiar with PF-specific conventions. That said, I have been in and judged several topicality policy debates, and I have no problem voting for it or structural issues with the argument.

Plans: Go for it. I’ve never judged a PF team that reads a plan, so I am not especially for or against one.

Kritiks: This is probably the area I am personally most familiar with since I have spent most of my college career doing K debate. I have a broad knowledge of many Ks, and I really enjoy judging clash debates. However, I do understand reading Ks in a topic which changes monthly creates preparation difficulties for the aff. For this reason, I will weigh prep-oriented arguments with a particular weight. I will not be sympathetic to policy arguments which glamorize exclusionary models of debate instead of focusing on the real challenges of being prepared for unconventional arguments on a monthly basis. In other words, in clash debates I will be more convinced by more personal impacts about the difficulties of preparation as opposed to interpretations which exclude critical literature or identity debate in their entirety.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow on my laptop

Argument or style? I consider style heavily over argument when awarding speaker points, but otherwise I will only rarely use style as a tiebreaker between equally matched teams. Generally, I have a strong preference for arguments.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? YES.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? I will not vote for a new argument in the final speeches, and teams should also do their best to call out their opponents for making new arguments.

Important Final Note: I WILL drop speaks for excessive rudeness towards your partner or your opponents. I am especially conscious of sexism and other forms of discrimination in debate spaces based on personal experience and what I have observed about inclusivity in the debate community. I will not tolerate bigotry between debaters, and I really appreciate kindness and courtesy in round. Don't speak over others in cross-ex, avoid demeaning language, don't ever record without other's permission, and be respectful of your partner and the other team.

Good luck and have fun!

Hello,

I am a fairly new judge. I work in the healthcare field. I prefer you to speak slow and concise. I also prefer for you to give me a road map before you begin. Have fun and good luck! 👍

Avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks. You can be aggressive in your argumentation as long as you remain respectful.

Evidence should be well sourced. If there’s a bias in your source, I will probably notice.

A good case is dynamic and able to respond to your opponent’s contentions. If you just talk fast and try to make as many points as possible in the allotted time, I will stop listening.

Consider the real world implications of the things that you suggest. If you argue about these things as if they matter, and try to actually convince me that the world you present is better than your opponent’s, you have a strong chance at winning.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

· Speed: "Whatever you think you can do, I can handle". That being said, there is some element of communication that gets lost with speed, especially if your opponent can't handle the same pace. If you go too fast and I cannot flow then you DROP those contentions and evidence, plain and simple. So if you going fast detracts from the quality of clash, then that's your fault, not your opponent's. Also, if you're spreading for the sake of speed, and I can't understand the words that are coming out of your mouth, then there's nothing I can flow. You'll know you're being unclear if my pen hits the desk, I take up knitting, and I give you the death stare.

· Jargon: I'm not a fan of it, as it detracts from the ability for people not well versed in the activity to follow it, but I've gotten used to it.

· Argumentation: LD is a theoretical debate, and if you expect to pick up my ballot, you'll keep it that way. For example, you can talk about Gardasil, but if you don't impact it back to why it justifies compulsory immunizations, you just wasted my time. Also, you're not solving for anything (that's policy). Because it's a theoretical debate, you can't even assume that the problems you want to solve for exist in the first place.

· Kritiks: Cute? Yep. Amusing? You bet. Don't try to skirt the resolution. The debate is supposed to be a battle of competing values on a nationwide topic. When your value is something based around the expanding the education of debate, then you're avoiding the fundamentals of the event.

· Make sure you are somewhat comprehensible when reading cards. I don't need to hear every single word in a piece of evidence but I need to know that you are actually saying something coherent.

· Speaker Points will reflect how well you debated and how well you conducted yourself during speeches and throughout the entirety of our interaction and that with your opponent. My mother used to tell me "if you are really good at something, you will never have to tell people that you are, they will know." In other words, no need to bring your opponent to their knees. You can win with grace and kindness.

I have been judging for 4 years mostly focused on LD. I've come to really enjoy it and look forward to hearing from you.

What I am looking for:

Content is king for me: Having a good, sound argument where you clearly understand the facts/cards/reasoning of your aff and/or neg and can clearly explain them to those who do not is what I am looking for.

I am also looking for an organized thought process and adherence to the LD framework. Your actions should almost always be taking it back to your value and core contentions.

I understand Spreading is an approved technique, but if you are going so fast I can't understand your case, you can't win the argument, no matter how good it is. Speed is acceptable, as long as I can understand what you are saying. I am a professional communicator for a major healthcare company, and if I counseled my executive leader to speak super fast I would not have a job (and neither would the executive).

If you are going so fast I can't understand, I will give one warning. Again, the content of your argument and an organized framework will go much farther with me than getting lots of information/facts and figures on the table.

And know this: I am NOT a fan of Kritik. Do at your own risk.

It is important that everyone learn from this experience, so my comments will be broken into what you did well and opportunities for improvement.

Lastly, I appreciate all the hard work you put into this and am constantly impressed by students who have the courage to do this and their amazing skills. Thank you!

Brief Summary:

I went to La Salle and debated in LD for three years and debated in Policy when I was a senior. When I did LD I started out as a more traditional debater but became a bit more progressive through my career. And my time in Policy sorta desensitized me to atypical debate forms, meaning I will judge pretty much anything. I know that's not super helpful. 

Policy background means I love, and I mean love, good impact calc. Mainly, just focus on making well-warranted and impacted arguments, and proving why your impacts are more important than your opponent's. Also, don't be offensive. Any sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, generally discriminatory, etc. rhetoric will probably make me vote you down. We're all here to enjoy debate and the education we're supposed to get from it. Don't ruin it with offensive shit. 

Also. I judge with the mindset of tech over truth. I only judge the arguments that are made in round. I won't infer arguments on behalf of you or your opponent, no matter how intuitive. If your opponent doesn't address an argument of yours, regardless of how ridiculous, I will assume that argument is true. That said, I hate voting for dumb things. So please, please, please address your opponent's arguments. 

Speed is fine. Clarity is more important than slowing down. If you spread, make sure you spread clearly and still sorta enunciate. If your spreading becomes a hum, I'll probably be irritated. Also, slow down for taglines. That shouldn't really need to be said. I'll say clear if you're being unclear. 

I don't flow cross-ex, but if you reference part of cross-ex in a subsequent speech it'll get you hella ethos in my book, so def use that. I prefer when cx is used strategically to undermine your opponent's position, but if you need to ask clarification questions that's fine too. Don't be rude though. You may disagree with your opponent's argument, but I don't wanna see ad hominem stuff. I'd rather see you dismantle the argument. Also, I'm cool with flex prep. 

A little more info:

So I did LD for three years and I saw a lot of weird atypical frameworks and a lot of completely "normal" traditional-style frameworks. I will vote for either so long as they are well justified. This means that you prove why x-weighing system is better than y-weighing system. If you just say that x-weighing system does z-good thing, that isn't really a justification. You need to directly compare to your opponent's framework (unless they drop FW but that would be dumb so don't rely on it). Counterplans are fine, but you're gonna have to prove that they're mutually exclusive. Same with K's. (See policy background above.) Read a Disad if you want...but a DA is basically just a neg contention, so reading it with a separate DA format in LD would be kinda weird. 

The Framework debate should be handled as a weighing system in a way and a moral lens in the other way. I'm not crazy about deon if it's not well-warranted and I find util to be a lot more intuitive and easy to justify...but if you justify a deontological framework well, and defend it well against your opponent, I will probably pick you up on framework. Justifications and warrants and impacts are key. Also. Framework is how your impacts have to be evaluated and weighed against your opponent. Which means if you lose framework and you can't link your impacts into your opponent's framework you're probably SOL. Which is why framework clash is so, so important. Like, even if your values are both Morality you both probably have different conceptualizations of morality, so just because you say your values are the same doesn't mean framework is a wash. Clash. Or you'll probably lose. 

Contention level stuff is gonna be really dependent on your warrants. Policy has conditioned me to care more about cards than about analytics, but if you have a killer analytic and it dismantles your opponent's warrants, I'll probably notice and be impressed. So long as the logic and warrants are clear I probably won't have any issues with your contentions. In terms of impact calc, just be sure to link into the framework that won the framework debate and prove how you can achieve the value in the round better than your opponent. 

K's and critical arguments are fine. Just make sure you clearly articulate what the world of the alternative looks like and contextualize it with relation to the weighing system of the round. If you don't articulate an alternative, I'm going to flow the "kritik" as a disad. Because a K without an alt is really just a disad. Make sure you clearly articulate the alternative and explain why the mindset shift to that of the alt is preferable to SQuo. 

TL;DR weigh your impacts well and make sure your arguments are warranted and don't say offensive shit. Do these things better than your opponent and I'll probably pick you up. 

Profession: attorney with experience in public policy, litigation, and public-speaking

I value good authorities and good use of those authorities.  I am not swayed by conclusory statements when you haven't laid a foundation with authorities. 

Courtesy and respect for opponents is required.  If I perceive a lack of courtesy in tone or words then I will penalize.  

I keep time and appreciate it when participants do as well, both for speaking and prep.  

As in life, your rate of speaking is your choice.  If I cannot understand you then it will be rather hard for you to persuade me of your position.  

Hello! :3

I Maya Fray-Witzer, a 4th year LD debater from Lexington High School (MA). I was competitive for my first 3 years in the activity and now I am a teaching assistant for the novice LD class at my school.

I would classify myself as a more traditional debater (less "tech"/"circuit") than some of my peers, but I will attempt to evaluate any argument.

I love framing.

I'm simply looking for claim - warrant - impact, intelligent argument generation, and a general care for other debaters and the activity.

Have fun, learn lots!

[Last update 3/9/22: No real changes to what's below, but just a note to people who like to create live docs that a paradigm can be honest, accurate and funny. And if you don't get the jokes, then I feel a little sorry for you.]

History

I competed in LD, Extemp and Congress back before you were born (the 90s). I then returned and judged for a number of years before becoming an Assistant Coach (focusing on LD and Congress) -> Head Coach -> Assistant Coach (focusing on financials and tournament organization). I have spent the better part of the last decade-plus working tab on the local and national levels, but still do dust off the cobwebs occasionally to judge. I have judged everything, so individual event notes below.

LD

I started when LD was a values debate and still consider it so. The Affirmative has a burden to prove the resolution true and it's the job of the Negative to prevent that from happening (not necessarily by proving the resolution false). Though I think the progress of modern-day jargon has forced the event to become more esoteric, I've begrudgingly become accustomed to it. My biggest issue with contemporary debate is when debaters try and solve for some real-world problem. This is a theoretical debate; you can't assume the problems you're trying to solve for exist in the first place.

It's been a long while since I've been outspread in a round [and that was in policy], so you're probably okay to speak like you would normally in round. But understand that the actual clash of ideas can get devalued by hyperspeak, particularly when your opponent can't handle that same pace. So if you going fast detracts from the quality of debate, then that's your fault -- not your opponent's -- and that will reflect in your speaker score. Note if by some chance you are outspreading me, my pen will hit the desk and I will try and stare through your very soul. Take that as your sign to slow the heck down.

Lastly, keep your kritiks to yourself and don't try to skirt the resolution. The debate is supposed to be a battle of competing values on a nationwide topic. When your case is based around the expanding the education of debate, then you're avoiding the fundamentals of the event. You want to expand your education? How about you learn to argue the resolution you were given.

CX

Unlike LD, I have been outspread (rare as it may be). The best thing you can do to avoid that happening is to be very organized and sign post for me when you're moving to different arguments. Slowing down for tag lines also helps reduce that risk. Otherwise, it's easiest for me to approach CX as a hypo-tester [though I realize that's kind of obsolete], so assume I'm simply tab but be sure to explain to me how your arguments impact the round.

PFD

No major preferences in terms of argumentation, as the event isn't really long enough for that to be a big issue. Get to your key points and be wary of your word economy. For crossfires, don't be too rude [dominating the question time and/or just being snarky] or too nice [the "Do you have a question?" game] lest you risk your speaker points for the round.

Congress

STOP PLAYING NICE!!! Just because someone in the room has a speech on the bill/resolution does not mean they deserve to give that speech. If the argumentation on a bill has gone stale, then let's move onto the next bill for crying out loud! Besides, you're doing that person a favor and giving them better recency on a new bill rather than keeping them in the position of chamber custodian, left to clean up all the argumentation that has already taken place. Seriously, there is nothing I hate more in a session than rehash, and it seems these days that Student Congresses value decency and equity [perhaps as an opposition to Washington...] over quality.

My ranks usually get calculated on a two-prong system, ranking total speech points and speech score average, then combining them for a chamber rank. Ties are usually broken on everything else [question quality, number of questions, chamber usefulness, not being nice].

Speech

I read the rules for whatever event I'm judging. I then apply those rules to your performance. That probably makes me better than half the judges you sometimes get. Seriously though, stumbles and stutters are one of the first things I pick up on. If you're doing it a lot (particularly in rhetorical events), I'll start a counter and you'll be sad to see the results at the end of the round. Characterization and pantomime are generally my focal issues for interp events -- your goal is to make me forget that I'm sitting in a desk that is too small for an overweight adult. :)

Judge affiliated with Southern Lehigh

General Approach

The most important thing to keep in mind is I only judge a handful of circuit L-D tournaments each year, and I do not read up on debate-specific literature. Still, I competed in L-D for 3 years while in high school. What I'm trying to say is that I'm at the very least familiar with L-D, but I'm not always up on the latest trends and theory. If you run a particular framework or case structure, chances are, I do not know how I'm "supposed" to judge it. In general, you can run anything and I will listen to your argumentation, but your argumentation must explain and justify exactly why I should accept/reject whatever you're talking about.

Now, that in no way means I'll blindly accept an argument I know to be false. I will only judge you based on the arguments presented in round, but I am able to reason about what you're saying, and sometimes I'm already familiar with your warrants. I try to be as fair as possible about this: you're free to creatively interpret or extrapolate from your warrants, but I will not accept a blatant misinterpretation. Sometimes these misinterpretations happen by accident, and this is very unfortunate because the debater will go the entire round without realizing that they're wasting time arguing an interpretation of a warrant I've already rejected. To put it simply, I'm saying that I'll quickly accept interpretations of warrants I believe to be correct, but I'm very slow to accept ones I believe to be incorrect.

Specifics

Resolutionality - I believe strongly in interpreting the resolution the way it was meant to be interpreted. I am not persuaded by arguments that abuse dictionary definitions to push narrow interpretations of the resolution. I also believe that the judge's role is to accept or reject the resolution based on the arguments provided. In general, all arguments should be directly linked back through to the resolution.

Extensions - I evaluate the round based on the impacts and voters that still stand at the end of the round, not based on how many points are extended. To extend an argument, you must at a minimum restate the argument (not just its signpost, although you should signpost too) and restate the impact of the argument. Whether or not you actually say the word "extend" is irrelevant to me.

Drops and Turns - I'll accept that an opponent "drops" an argument if they fail to address it. However, any drops you call out must be impacted. A "turn" is when an opponent's arguments contain a contradiction, either implicitly or explicitly. Turns must be impacted just like drops. Please, please do not call something a "turn" just because you feel you have a strong rebuttal to it or something along those lines.

Framework - You do not need a V/VC, but you do need to tell me at some point how I'm supposed to weigh the round. You need to do this early on so that your opponent has time to rebut your weighing mechanism. Winning the framework debate does not on its own win you the round or give you an advantage, because the framework is nothing but a way to weigh the rest of the arguments made.

Speed - I prefer a slower read, but am capable of keeping up with significant speed. However, if you cannot speak quickly without tripping over your words, I highly recommend that you slow down. The faster you speak, the more clear you need to be. If I can't follow your logic because you stuttered your way through all of your signposts and impacts, then tough cookies.

Misc. Stuff

Signposting and Cards - Please, do not use the tags of your cards as signposts for your arguments; warrants can have implications beyond the original contention they're linked to, and arguments do not fall simply because the warrant is challenged. Therefore, please use actual signposts as your primary method of organizing your speeches.

Oral Critiques/Disclosure - Unless the tournament specifically tells judges otherwise, I am willing disclose the winner of a round. If asked to give an oral critique, I will only address style issues. This means that I tend to give very unhelpful oral critiques and I usually sound like I'm nitpicking.

Evidence - I will not read your evidence before, during, or after the round, unless someone claims evidence was falsified. You are of course free to share evidence amongst yourselves, but I do not require it.

Timing - If your timer makes a loud, obnoxious sound when time is up, do not use it to time your opponent.

I debated Lincoln Douglas in high school at Woodlands Academy and I judge LD exclusively.

Please be civil throughout the round. Present your arguments and address and refute your opponent's to the best of your ability without belittling your opponent or introducing personal or otherwise inappropriate arguments. You may speak as quickly as you'd like, as long as you enunciate and speak clearly.

I hope you all have fun and learn more though your experience with debate.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Update: Jan. 18, 2020

I’m a teacher from Toms River, NJ who teaches US1 and US2 Honors. I’ve been coached PF/LD Debate and extemp at Ridge HS for the last 9 years, but it's been probably two years since I've found myself in an LD pool. Please read this paradigm before the round for the best picture of what I’m like as a judge. This is far more detailed than the readers-digest version that I’ll give orally before the round if requested.

LD

It's been a while since I've been in an LD judging pool. Needless to say, I'm out of practice.

Speed: Start out at a reasonable pace. I need to hear your voice and your cadence for a few seconds before the spreading starts. I'll call clear two or three times before I give up flowing. If you're reading a plan text/interp/role of the ballot, don't spread it. I want to hear all of it. If you're reading theory in front of me, good luck. I'll need you to go slow and hold my hand through it.

Argumentation: I'm most familiar with policy args and kritiks. That said, I'm open to whatever you want to put in front of me.

Theory should only be read in the case of actual in-round abuse. Theory for the sake of theory isn't fun for me to listen to. If you're going to run theory, you should read it at a slightly faster than conversational pace. I'm not familiar with the arguments, and often a lot of it goes over my head. I need the abuse story to be clear and concise to the point where I can explain it start-to-finish in an RFD. The more accessible a theory argument is, the easier a time I'll have evaluating it.

I have a super low threshold on responses on spikes at the end of a constructive. I tend to ignore arguments like time skew, if I'm being honest.

Don't feel like you have to go for every argument in the round. Be strategic in the issues you select. You're constructing a ballot story for me and if all I have are blippy arguments to vote on, I (and probably you) will not be particularly happy with the decision rendered. I prefer seeing thoughtful debate with depth on one or two issues in the round rather blippy, surface level arguments about everything.

Warrants are important, logical and otherwise. "That isn't true" isn't an argument...you need to tell me why something isn't true.

Ad Hominem attacks against a debater are unacceptable. I'm not going to vote for a debater who calls their opponent racist, sexist, ableist, etc without any justification.

Racist, sexist, abelist, etc. arguments are a no-go for me. Run at your own risk.

Speaker Points: I'll follow whatever standard the tournament sets. You'll probably notice that I'm a bit stingier with speaker points than other judges. That's not to say that I've never given a 30 before, but it's not a particularly frequent occasion.

Evidence: The evidence standard in LD (in my experience) is remarkably higher than it has been in PF rounds that I've judged...that said, I still feel the need to say it...Academic integrity is extremely important. Please be honest. Don't alter a card's meaning, don't intentionally misrepresent evidence. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent.

_______

PF

Speed/Speaking: I enjoy fast/circuit style debate. However, I will not flow if you spread. Spreading has no place in PF. I consistently reward good speakers who sound like they care about what they are talking about. When I evaluate a speaker I take into account a number of things: strategic decisions, coverage, efficiency, speaking style, persuasiveness, etc.

Points: 0-25 (or whatever the lowest base the tournament allows to give) are reserved for those who are offensive (more on that later). 25.5-26 is a debater who has a lot to work on, has serious flaws in arguments, couldn’t fill speech times, and most likely will not make it to elims. 26.5-27.5 is an average debater. May make it to elims, but still has noticible flaws in arg construction, lines of logic, and is not a great speaker. 28-29 will most likely break. Lines of logic are mostly solid and I was probably impressed by the case. Args may have flaws but they are minor. 30 is the ideal debater. Flawless argumentation, a stellar and strategic speaker.

Things that will lose you speaks: The thing I most frequently award 25 speaks for is for not citing evidence correctly. A few examples of this are additions or omissions of words (even the omission of a word like “might”), straw man arguments, literally making things up. It’s not difficult to tell if you misinterpreted the evidence because you didn’t understand it. There is a big difference between an honest misinterpretation and malicious intent. Debate is an academic activity. As such, academic integrity is important to me. If you feel that you cannot debate in front of me without unethically interpreting evidence, please strike me.

While it may not earn you a 25 outright, talking during your opponents speeches is extremely rude. Your opponents speeches are not prep time for you. If you need to communicate with your partner, write or type a note. Every time a debater decides to speak during their opponents speech, I’ll subtract a half point from them.

During CX, please treat your opponent with respect. I understand CX gets heated sometimes but yelling over your opponent, being condescending, etc won’t win you points with me.

Framework: Please have one at the top of the constructive. It’s difficult to debate literally every aspect of a resolution without some reasonable restrictions to ground or without telling me how I should evaluate the round. I’m not sure why this has become a trend, but debaters have started framing debates/running observations in their rebuttals (not overviews, full blown frameworks). If a framework turns up anywhere but the beginning of the constructive, I won’t flow it. I don’t think framing the debate in the rebuttal (the second rebuttal especially) is particularly fair.

Weighing: Please weigh especially if you’re working with two different metrics (money and lives for example). If you don’t weigh, I have to do the weighing myself and I prefer not to.

Rebuttals: I understand the value of the line by line. What I dislike are massive card dumps with 8 responses against each subpoint. I reward debaters who can make sound logical arguments (with a source or two where appropriate) to dismantle a contention. Please warrant all responses. Warrants can be logical or source based. I don’t want to hear “my opponent is wrong.” Or “this contention doesn’t make sense”...tell me WHY your argument is true. (This should be self explanatory, but I’ve written too many ballots that say the words “no warrant/please warrant your response).

The Summary: There isn’t no enough time to cover a line by line in a summary. Give me logical responses (sources if you have to) to arguments and crystallize the debate. Set up the voting issues.

Final Focus: Don’t run new arguments in the Final Focus.

Id be happy to answer any other questions you have before the start of the round.

LD is supposed to be debate before a lay audience and presume I am a lay person. Construct a cohesive presentation and deliver at a speed and choice of words a lay person will comprehend. My eyes and ears tend to glaze when I hear too much debate jargon. Contextualize and rank your contentions clearly articulating the value. Your contentions should be credible and pass a smell test and I tend to discount projections that have a quantum probability. I have a physics/math background and tend to look at questions for a lens of 'Is this a useful question to ask'. Treat your opponents with respect.

General Paradigm: Do what you do best, Tech>Truth, Speed is fine.

Experience: I did policy debate and some LD at La Salle College High School from 2012-2016. Since then I've consistently judged ~20 rounds per year.

Aff: I typically went for a soft left policy aff but I enjoyed running big stick offs too. I think affirmatives without a plan are an important and educational part of the activity as well. What ever you option you choose just make sure that at the end of the round I know:

what the 1AC is supposed to do
how it is supposed to do it,
and why what it does matters.

I'm not the best person for a No-plan vs. K debate simply because I wasn't in and haven't seen as many rounds like that.

Neg:

Framework: If the affirmative doesn't defend a plan Framework is the strategy I most often used as a debater and am most familiar with. When executed poorly Framework debates are boring. I'm personally like fairness and education standards. Only go for fairness if the affirmative really does make the round unfair (which they sometimes do). I think Topical versions of the affirmative are important and can make it hard for the negative, especially if you can find an actual solvency advocate for the T version, but I appreciate quick thinking too.

Ks: I went for security and Neolib fairy often. The same rules apply to the Alt as apply to the Aff; at the end of the round I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. I think the link debate is very important, I think the turns case analysis is important. I can be sympathetic to aff claims that the alt is vague but that's easily mitigated by: 1 not having a vague alt, or 2 making the affirmative seem like such a bad idea that a vaguer alt is a better idea. I find that in rounds where the Affirmative doesn't defend a plan and the Neg goes for a K the role of the ballot debate gets really messy, the cleaner that is the easier my decision is. If there are role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments explain why: 1 they are the same thing and competing, or 2 they are different and how they interact. I'll be hard pressed to believe that the affirmative doesn't get to weigh the 1 AC in some capacity.

DA: The more specific the better. I think probability, time-frame, and magnitude are all important. I believe a DA can have zero risk. If the affirmative wants to go this route they're best off reading something that says "low risk = no risk." At the end of the round make sure I know why the DA matters more than the 1AC.

CP: An Advantage CP(s) with impact turns are awesome debates(but who didn't already know that). CP solvency is important. If the affirmative makes a theory argument on the CP it's a reason to reject the argument, probably not the team.

Topicality: I'll buy reasonability but it's fairly easy for the neg to beat it. If the affirmative can win reasonability they probably could have won the CI/we meet debate too, reasonability is just an easier route. T is just another argument, it needs a claim, warrant, and impact. It's easy to convince me that a term of art definition beats two words defined separately.

Hello Debaters,

I have been judging for 3+ years, Mostly focused around LD but some Public Forum as well.

What I am Looking For: :)

Framework is important, but Overall Content is Key; I flow Cross-X and I am a Traditional LD Judge...

What I am NOT looking for: :(

If you spread you will not be victorious, hence do not spread. Speak Clearly.

Overall I am happy to be judging your round and look forward to viewing an interesting debate!

I appreciate your speaking slowly and clearly (no spreading).  I believe this is an important skill to develop for all public speaking.  Also, if I miss what you are saying I won't be able to judge it.

If you introduce a concept (e.g. social contract) please be sure to provide a clear definition.

I appreciate debaters who make full use of the purposes of each stage of the debate.  For example, during negative constructive,  state your case and then argue against the Aff.  In the final phases, make sure you summarize/crystallize your argument, etc. Think about what you want to accomplish in each stage.

I choose to judge debate because I find it very stimulating and thought-provoking.  I enjoy seeing different debaters' styles and ways of approaching topics.

My hope is that you enjoy the challenge of debate and see everything that happens as an opportunity to learn and improve.

Best wishes!

Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com

I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.

I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)

Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.

I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.

Be nice and have fun!

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).

I am a traditional/quasi-progressive judge. I enjoy creative arguments of any sort as long as they are argued well. However, if you chose to run more policy-oriented arguments, do not drop the value debate. That always is a key element when deciding the round. Also, do not drop any arguments. I am less focused on whether someone followed the correct format of addressing a specific type of argument but rather the analysis and thought behind it.

If an argument is dropped, do not simply tell me that it was dropped; explain the impact of dropping the argument. On the same note, do not just extend all your cards during your rebuttal. That does nothing to help you win the round. Focus on the arguments and provide clear impacts of why specific arguments were dropped.

Use all the allotted time for both cross-ex and rebuttals. Extra time at the end of your speeches hurts your speaker points. Also, provide clear voting issues.

Please road map before your rebuttals and clearly signpost throughout.

I can handle speed but do not spread. The goal is to be comprehensible.

I was a LD debater when I was in high school and have judged for the past 8 years. Additionally, I research all the LD topics. As a result, I am very familiar with the LD format and the arguments for the given topic.

Hello All,

My name is Kevin Speina. I am a graduate student at Princeton University currently obtaining a PhD degree in Chemistry . I have been avidly judging speech and debate for now 5 years . I judge both individual events and LD events. In the context of debate, I consider myself to be quite strict for the following reasons: As a scientist and former debater, the concept of necessary and sufficient is of upmost importance. With every premise, there must be substantial evidence that bolsters your argument. If you fail to substantiate your claims, your arguments lack context. Thus, your credibility diminishes. Additionally, appeal to ignorance or attacking the opponents' claims without evidence are deleterious tactics insofar as you are highlighting to me that your claims/arguments are unsubstantiated. In order to make your arguments necessary and sufficient you need evidence to back your claims up and employ tactics such as syllogistic logic, logos, generalizations of data that can be made from your sources, and acknowledgment of the counter argument as a means of bolstering up yours. It's so important to speak clearly as well. I understand you have many points to make in a short period of time but REFRAIN from talking too fast because we can't follow your logical framework. Most importantly, be respectful. Do not attack your opponent's character or credibility. This is a poor tactic that succinctly shows me that you cannot bolster up your claims without attacking your opponents claim; this is fallacious and will compel me to make you loose the debate.

I am a game theorist and policy-maker judge. I will accept any arguments so long as you can prove that they are sound, relevant, and entail resolution-unique impacts. My background is in logic, rhetoric, and philosophy so I expect arguments to be well constructed with sound reasoning and appropriate warranting. I like to see progressive clash in crossfire rather than questions aimed at clarification or exposition. It is my belief that a debate simply cannot be won on content alone so I place equal weight on framework (theoretical) arguments and case (empirical/evidential) arguments. My win condition for debate is not only how well versed and dominant you are on a particular topic but also how well you can debate objectively; some criteria for this evaluation include but are not exclusive to effective use of turns and blocks, effective construction of counterexamples, effective elucidation of advantages and disadvantages of argument acceptance, and effective elucidation of fallacious argumentative methodology. In more empirical formats such as PF I see it as essential that debaters understand the respective fact-finding and research methods involved in their warrants; in other words, debaters should be able to quickly and accurately explain exactly how a conclusion was reached in an academic study, meta-analysis, etc. and furthermore how that conclusion uniquely addresses the claim or claims it is being employed to support. Overall I believe that the purpose of debate is to encourage more comprehensive and diverse education, thus abusive strategies (policy debaters I'm mostly looking at you) rarely win on my ballots.

I did PF for four years in high school, and have been judging PF and LD ever since.

Here are my main areas of concern:

Spreading - Don't do it. If I can't understand what you're saying or the supporting evidence for it because you're speaking so fast, there's really no point to you saying it. Remember this is primarily a public speaking event and you're job is to convince me. Speak at a normal/slightly above normal pace.

Gish Galloping - Don't do it. I think it is abusive and you'll lose. I'd rather see a few well developed arguments then 27 arguments supported with one sentence.

Tabula Rasa - I come into the round knowing nothing about the topic; everything I know about it I learn from the debaters.

Counter Plans - Generally not a fan. Argue for or against the resolution, not something in between.

How to win - Convince me to go with your side. On the Aff, convince me of the resolution. On the Neg, convince me that the resolution will not solve the problem, the status quo is better, etc.

LD is my first love. I prefer clean, well laid out arguments that include philosophy. The philosophy must be explicitly defined and explained. I do not appreciate CX like arguments with impacts, etc. I cannot handle much speed. I won't make arguments for you, please do so yourselves. I prefer crystallization on both sides.