I judge LD from a rules-as-written perspective.

Speech should be comprehensible and quantity of evidence should not be excessive. I don't like speed and will call speed if debaters go too fast. If I have to speed a debater twice in-round and the debater makes no effort to slow down or speeds back up after slowing down the debater will be dropped.

The only way to get 30 speaker points in front of me is to read full citations as defined by the LD rules. That includes the author's name, the author's qualifications if present, full date, and title of source. Read these in-round and you get a 30.

Kritiks take work to win in front of me. Read framework, win framework, and tell me why that framework means I should vote for your alt. I will almost never vote for a do nothing alt. If you want to try and get me to do so you need to explain what it means for me as the judge to do nothing.

Multiple advocacies is bad, don't read them in front of me. The negative gets one, and you don't get to kick it in favor of the status quo. If you read an alt or CP you are stuck with it unless you collapse to T.

I'll vote for a T collapse. The standards need to have warrants that present a disadvantage to the interp of the aff. "T is a voter for fairness and education" is not good enough on the voter level. You need to specifically implicate how your standards connect to those voters specifically from the NC. If you don't and try to do it in the NR that would be a new argument and neither side gets to make new arguments in the rebuttals.

I will answer questions in-round if there are further things you want/need to know.

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

I will automatically intervene against the following:

1. Overt racism and hate speech - this is an automatic loss.

2. Speed being used as a weapon in either direction - my threshold for this is typically not slowing down when asked to slow down. If all debaters are fine with the speed of the round, so am I.

3. Lies about what the rules say ("The rules never say T is a voting issue").

Besides that, run whatever you want. Dumb positions like RVI's are uphill battles, but I vote on the flow. Truth gets more speaker points than tech.

I debated for four years on the national circuit when in high school. Since then, I have coached LD at both the high school and college levels on the national circuit. I am a Ph. D student studying continental philosophy, so I will likely be familiar with your favorite kritik literature. I do not have a strong preference for the style of arguments you choose to make, (I am not a K-hack, for example) but only insist that you try to make them well. While I do not think "tab" judging is possible, I see it as a basically desirable goal (with some exceptions). I am fine with speed, but I think I am a little hard of hearing, so I might say "LOUDER" for you to speak up.

I default to a competing worlds or "offense/defense" paradigm. I also default to viewing theory as an issue of competing interpretations. I generally dislike truth-testing arguments. I am probably more open to kritiks of theory and the like than other judges, but am also perhaps more likely to vote for theory arguments than others. I like that performances are part of debate. I think the best parts of debate are when the debaters are able to use the debate space as a means to get the judge, opponent, and audience to deal with an issue that they really think is worth discussing (of course, this can just as well be a complicated discussion of policy issues as it can be a discussion of personal experiences).

I hedge all of the above claims with "I default to" or "generally..." because I see debate as a space for debaters to express themselves, not for judges to determine what the contents of those speech acts are supposed to be. Of course, this has its limits (I will not vote for arguments I take to be grossly offensive, or arguments which I think tangibly make debate an unsafe space, for example). But I largely think debaters should be allowed to debate in the style that they prefer and that the judge should play as minimal a role as possible.

I generally assign pretty high speaker points. If you got low speaker points, you were probably rude or offensive or very unclear. I see speaker points as a way of rewarding good behaviors (like communicating clearly, answering questions directly, being kind to your opponent) and punishing bad behaviors (like being deliberately unclear, uncharitable, or rude). So if you want good speaker points in front of me, I'd recommend just being kind to your opponent.

Updated for IPDA and Policy judging

Craig Hennigan
University of Nevada Las Vegas

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. I was the Director of Forensics at Truman State University for 7 years and now am the Director of Debate at UNLV and started in 2022.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I don't judge kick. If the CP is in the NR, the SQ isn't an option anymore.

I don’t like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote against the K.

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Darn right, what are you gonna do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, it is a high bar and you probably shouldn't do it.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. Make an argument still with the performance. I don't typically want to do extra work for a debater so you need to apply your performance to arguments your opponent makes. I don't place arguments on the flow for you through embedded clash.

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Policy:Most of this is the same. Know that I'm getting older. I used to be around an 8 on the scale of speed and its probably dropped down to a 7. This means don't spread analyticals if you want me to vote on them. If you group 4-5 perms at once very quickly I may not get them all. I'm only in the game 2-3 times a year so some of the newer terminology or tricks I may not be as up to speed on. I won't vote on short blip arguments. Not the biggest fan of too many conditional worlds, 1 K and 1 CP is my default. I don't do judge kick either. I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur in this area now.

IPDA: IPDA is not policy nor should it resemble policy. I'm much less flow oriented. I'm of the belief that IPDA is far more of a speech activity and judge it accordingly. Dropped arguments carry weight, but less weight for me if they aren't really quality arguments. I'm of the opinion that a debater can win even if they aren't winning "on the flow" by being persuasive and speaking well. This is a publicly oriented event, so being cordial and good natured is important. This is a showcase to what debate ought to look like for the public, so treat it that way. I aim to be a judge that tries to leave behind my Policy/LD experience to substitute my speech experience and quality argumentation knowledge.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains or ideally a speechdrop so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it. If its obviously unintentional then I'll warn you about it. (like you're a novice or you skipped a non-strategic line by mistake).

Affiliations:

Niles West - policy 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - parli/LD

Email: kanganador@gmail.com

Yes, add me to the email chain, feel free to email me questions after round.

Topic Update: 

Whatever topic you're debating, I know nothing about it. Adjust accordingly, like using a full phrase once before you start throwing around topic acronyms.

Policy/Parli/LD/etc: 

Speed is fine. Arguments are arguments-- my views don't change when the debate format changes. This also means time yourselves, because I mix up all these speech formats.

Paradigm: 

• I try to consider myself tabula rasa, so feel free to read anything in front of me. I vote on the line by line: if an argument is well warranted and impacted, then I’ll be willing to vote for it. So even if you think their CP/K/Theory arg is terrible, answer it, then call it terrible.
• Good: organized debates that are easy to flow, good jokes, clarity
• Bad: messy debates where I could find Waldo more easily than the uniqueness you read on the wrong flow, rudeness to opponents/partner/me, reading analytics faster than you read cards
• Prep time stops when the flash drive leaves your computer/you hit send, with an exception for novice debate. Tag team CX is fine.
• I prefer to not call up cards. The bottom of ballot states to vote for the team that ‘did the better debating,’ not who has the better evidence. Bad card with incredible explanation > great card that is not explained or warranted.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts.

Hi y'all. Hope this is helpful in any way.

ABOUT ME:

My name is Darren, and genderqueer, pronouns are they/them. This is my 6th year involved in debate, 4 years debating, and this will be my 3rd year coaching.

TL;DR:

Route to my ballot: no matter what you are going for, collapse in the rebuttal to specific arguments, not just off-case/advantages. Tell me a comprehensive story thereafter, and resolve other issues. The best debate is one in which arguments are impacted and/or resolved with clear indication to how the argument is supposed to impact my decision.

Kritik - I like Kritiks due to their explanatory power. The aff should have equally powerful justifications and methods to prove the desirability of the 1ac. I don't start from a point that the Aff must be topical in instances where there is substantial evidence that is congruent with the advocacy/position of the K why they shouldn't have to be, and believe that the education K's give outweighs most other framing arguments. That being said - when Framework is ran against a K, I am more persuaded by game-balancing (fairness) arguments.

If you are running the K - 100% you should read framework in 1A/NC. Without it, I am giving credency to the aff on a lot of arguments I should not be.

T/theory - against policy affs I have a low threshold for voting on T/theory. I default competing interps, but do not believe that it is the end-all be-all of theory judging.

Speed - I'm usually comfortable. The clearer you are, the better off you will be.

PARADIGM:

I will not pretend that personal/political bias' will never affect my, or other's decisions in round. That being said, I will do everything in my power to decenter myself, and do no work for either debater. In general, I wish for you debaters to make the round according to your wishes. Specific stances on issues will be listed below. Any question and/or clarification of my paradigm are welcome before the round as long as both debaters are present.

The truest method to my ballot

Collapse and Resolve. Most negatives and affirmatives give me little room to vote on the singular argument that wins you the round, but explain the 9 different scenarios as to why I need to vote for them. The former is MUCH MORE compelling than the latter. As such, you should collapse not just to different positions/advantages, but rather specific arguments on them that give you a compelling story as to why you win. Resolving is the method of showing me the importance or unimportance of certain issues that would win/lose you the ballot. An example of such an argument is: "we are winning our framework contention so the affirmative structural violence advantage should be given prioritization over the disad because the loss of life of structural issues has killed millions silently, much more than any one war."

Speaker points

I give 25-30 speaker points in most rounds. The exception to this rule is when insults are used to devalue the other debater or to groups of people. Usually, this will accompany a loss in the round, and 0-15 speaker points.

Critiques/ On the Aff Criticism.

I like critiques because of their explanatory power. Critiques are acceptable and good for testing the desirability of the affirmative/resolution. If you desire to go for framework type arguments to exclude criticisms, it is an uphill battle for my ballot. This follows for affirmative critiques as well.

I do not believe the negative needs an alternative to win that I should not vote for the affirmative, just that the justifications for the affirmative are bad. An alternative is helpful for justifying my ballot, but it is not necessary.

If you are aff, to win the critique from a standpoint of policy is to situate the aff in conversation with methods of knowledge production and how the affirmative engages with power structures writ large. These explanations need be more nuanced than just "incrementalism good." Research of the 1ac must necessarily include the justifications of how/why the problem exists and how to resolve those issues, and why this method is preferable. This has most successfully been deployed in framing contentions. Otherwise, you will struggle to win my ballot in these rounds

Speed.

Speed is usually a non-issue, however be courteous to your opponent in all instances and allow for engagement of all debaters. I will speed/clear you if necessary.

Evidence.

All evidence used in round should be shared by any means, I prefer Speechdrop so far.

Theory/topicality/framework

Great if done well. I prefer theory/topicality/framework debates that get deep into specific standards and voters. I typically take an offense-defense paradigm to theory which gives me a low threshold when voting on these positions, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise as I believe that its not the end-all of debate judging. Framework against criticisms however is one area that I find the critique's answer more compelling in most cases.

Effects/Extra T function best as a separate position. When ran as a standard, there is a quick "you explode limits" argument along with its own voters, however, I am less convinced that these are sufficient to go for in the NR due to their limited explanation in the NC. If the aff is extra/effects, then make that argument as a separate position.

If you are aff, most T's will omit the affirmative in some fashion. In order to win in these cases you need to prove why your interpretation is better than the negatives. To do so, you must not undercover the standards. As with most debate rounds, T debate is best served when you have a strategy. Make smart concessions that you know you can outweigh later, and have a plan for what internal links to voters you are going for.

Rules

Critical thinking and reasoning are key skills debate develops. Rules arguments are at conflict with such skills as long as why the rules exist goes unstated. Giving reasons why rules matter, or why the rules exist (i.e. education and fairness) will help you access my ballot much easier than any shallow "rules say you should lose" argument.

I debated for all 4 years of undergrad, then coached at Central Michigan University for 2 years. I default to "debate is a game", but will go with your framework and consider any position, I am overall a pretty open judge. Tell me how the round should be framed and why.

For procedural arguments including Topicality, I would need standards, as well as impacts. I consider stock issues a priori, but violations need to be explicitly called out.

Tell me what your voters are at the end of the round, or I will prioritize arguments based on what I hear.

I can keep up with what ever speed is comfortable with both debaters.

I'm good with Ks if they are constructed well and have impact. I consider Ks on both ends the same as a traditional case. If you run it on the neg, you need to have alts that actually solve for your harms, similar to a disad/CP.

I value content over delivery.

If you have any specific questions just ask before round.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

Updated: 09/21/2020

Background:

Hey my name is Jon Sahlman. I debated at Western Kentucky University, coached at Western Kentucky, and am now pusuring a PhD at Louisiana State University. I've done LD-(1 v 1 policy) for 4 years and previously did NPDA for 2 years. I've coached HS Public Forum, LD, and Congress as well.

General:

I try to be as hands-off as possible, and really just let the debaters do what they want and direct the round. I think that debate is educational and therefore allowing debaters to debate how they wish promotes creativity and education in the debate space. I will listen to ALMOST every position (Let me clarify)...

I believe that my ballot has some form of actual endorsement of arguments. Because of this, I refuse to endorse any argument that is discriminatory or offensive. For example, "Capitalism is good because it brought slavery which built America".....(Yes that actually happened in a round once).....I will automatically drop you. Any sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. argument that is made... I will refuse to endorse and will drop you.

Speed:

I do not care how fast you go as long as you don't use speed as a tool to exclude your opponent. This means that if your opponent says "clear" or "slow down" I expect you to honor it. If I cannot understand you then I will say so. I suggest at least slowing down a little bit on tags and cites. If your opponent continuously says clear or slow down and you refuse to, I will drop you.

T:

I default to Counter-interpretations unless you tell me otherwise. Make the standards debate clear. If the warrants are poor and there isn't a good comparison of interpretations I will most likely just call it a wash.

---Other Theory:

I will listen to any theory position. Cross apply what I said about the standards debate.

Proven abuse is not needed but obviously makes your argumentation better.

Condo Good? Sure

Condo Bad? Sure

Disclosure theory? Sure

K:

love it. Make the links clear. I need to be able to understand your alternative. If it's something really out there break it down for me. Alt solvency is pretty important.

CP:

Please don't double-turn yourself and link into a DA you read. Conditional CPs are fine, its up to you and your opponent to have that debate. Again I do not really care what you read. PICS are cool.

DA:

Make sure you have the UNQ going in the right direction lol....Links links links links links... make it clear. Impacts...actually have one. I dont believe quality of life is really an impact.

Aff:

Biggest complaint is FW. If I do not understand what your FW is then I don't know how to vote for you. Solvency is most important for me on the aff. If you have no FW then I default to Net-benefits.

Performance either aff or neg:

Again do what you want. I've seen some awesome performance debate. Just make sure I know what the thesis of your performance is/why the topic either does or doesn't matter. As the judge If interrogating a part of my mindset or identity is necessary that's completely fine with me.

Speaker Points:

I don't care if you sit or stand

I don't care what color your suit is..and the people that do are terrible.

I don't care what you wear in the round...and the people that do are terrible

I don't care if you wear heels...and the people that do are terrible

Final thought:

Have fun. Debate should be an expression of yourself. Don't let anyone tell you your "style of debate" is wrong.