Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

I have not been judging on a regular basis recently, so speed should be kept under control.

I am open to most types of arguments.

Be sure to do the basics.

Be clear on tags and sources.

If you extend the source, add a bit of the tag. (See sentence one)

Explain why the warrants you want to extend matter to the round rather than just telling me to "extend the warrant of our What'sTheirName Card because they're fantastic." Be sure you've said what the fantastic warrants are.

Work to go down the flow logically and consistently. (See sentence one)

In the past, I was comfortable with critical arguments, but they need to be used consistently throughout the round and it's the debaters' responsibility to illustrate how they fit a particular resolution. I'm also fine with the basic social contract theorists, the Kant, utilitarian, and virtue ethics arguments if the they fit.

Work to avoid the "they said, but we said" arguments. Instead, clash with the argument directly and explain why your data, analysis, source, methodology, or first principles are superior to the opposition.

If there's going to be risk analysis, work to win on timeframe, magnitude, and probability not just magnitude. At least try to win two out of three. (Feel free to insert Meat Loaf (R.I.P) reference.)

Please work to sum up the story of the round. Don't ask a judge to think or assume that a judge will make the same conclusions that you have. Explain what to think and why that conclusion is the best option in the round.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

About Me
I was a LD debater for Yankton High School. I coached Yankton LD for 6 years and qualified 3 LDers to NSDA Nationals during that time. I attended the University of South Dakota as both a philosophy major in undergrad and a law student.  I am currently an associate attorney and have been part-time assistant coaching Roosevelt High School LD in Sioux Falls SD since 2015.

LD Philosophy
First off, I will always evaluate the debate round in front of me. If the round forces me to vote one way, I will vote that way. For instance, if the round comes down to value clash or a key contentional argument, that is where I will vote.  If a person defends a framework or philosophy that I disagree with or believe they are misinterpreting, I need the other side to point that out for me to vote on. 

A majority of these comments are purely preferences for what I enjoy to see in a round.
For the purposes of my paradigm, however, the general system I prefer to use while judging LD is as follows:

1. I first look to any Resolutional Analysis to determine burdens in the round and how the resolution should be interpreted.
2. Then I look to the Value / Criterion framework. I want to see who has established the paramount value to achieve as well as the best criterion for weighing the round and/or measuring/achieving the value.
3. Then I look to see how the arguments on the contention level work under the winning Value/Criterion Framework and if the better argument(s) affirm or negate the resolution.
   • It is possible that a debater can win the Value and Criterion Framework and still lose the round if the other debater successfully debates under the winning framework.
   • However, if a debater’s case has a tight connection between the Value/Criterion and the other arguments in case, the debater who wins the Framework should win the round.

Framework
I feel as if a value and criterion are important components of a LD case.  LD is distinct from other debates by the simple fact that it is a “value debate.” However, I will not vote against a debater who lacks a framework unless the other side makes it an issue in the round.  As has been stated before, and will be said later, arguments that are clearly connected with the (V/C) framework carry significantly more weight than arguments without any framework grounding.

Value Debate
Debating the value is essential to a LD debate, in my mind. Rounds that ignore the value debate are the rounds I enjoy the least. 

From the perspective of proposing a value, some justification for why the value is “valuable” and how it relates to the resolution is needed. This justification cannot be simply “the resolution says moral (or just/justified/justice) therefore we must value morality (or justice) because the resolution says so.”
I used to be ok with the value of Morality, but have been developing the opinion that you cannot value morality, but you value what morality creates. Morality and ethics, in a sense, are judgments about certain actions, and you cannot value mere judgments. Also, I think morality and justice are two different normative categories so I would like a substantial explanation on why they are the same if that is your case strategy. Again, this is my take, but my preference will not affect my decision unless the other side addresses it. 

Delivery styled
I used to be more middle of the road when it came to LD speed, but I can handle pretty fast pace as long as the words you are saying are clear and you slow down on tag.  My fingers aren't as fast as my ears.  Also, the use of jargon is acceptable.

Argumentation
When you pull something across the flow or cross-apply something, provide sufficient analysis why it matters and pull through warrants. Make it more than just a line on my flow of the round. Minimal, yet sufficient, analysis for cross-application or extending will always carry more weight than cross-applications and extensions with an absence of explanation.
Crystallization/voting issues should be given at the end of the debate. This preference is to your advantage because it emphases the recency aspect persuasion. Voters down the flow are ok as long as they are clearly identified as voters. 

Explain how your arguments relate with one another. As my high school debate coach and a law professor always said, “Tell me the story.” For example, tell me how certain cards, analytical, or statistics affect the round, namely the value and criterion.

In general, make the argumentative connections for me. There are too many times where I can see an easy connection that could win the round for the debater, but the debater fails to flesh that argument out causing me to vote against the debater. I do my best to not do the work for the debater on the flow.

Circuit Sytle
I will be honest and let you know I grew up as a traditional LD debater.  However, I want to break into circuit style in terms of judging and coaching.  While I don't like plan/counterplan debate, I will not vote you down because of it. I will listen to the round in front of me. If you are running more circuit style arguments, then explain to me how that functions in the round.  I want to learn and become part of the circuit style type of debate.

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.