I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I am the Coach at Carrollton High School, Carrollton, GA. I have been coaching for a number of years. I have coached policy, LD, and PF debate.

I expect debaters to weigh arguments, if you don’t then I'm going to weigh them and you probably won't like that. I like warrants in case. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground on it. Tell me why your response matters and delinks their case. Speed is okay as long as you speak clearly. Arguments that you want me to vote “off of” should be extended through summary and final focus. I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech. I think that debate should be about integrity and truth, meaning be aware of the language you use and the validity of your evidence. There is no place in debate for misconstruing and/or using fake evidence. The flow is important for me in making a decision. If an argument is to be evaluated it should be cleanly extended through the debate. I hate voting on arguments that were not well developed. The debate should not be about blindly reading cards without understanding them. I'm unlikely to vote on theory unless there's an actual violation in the round. Contextual analysis is always good.

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

Kevin Cummings

Background:  I debated policy in high school and CEDA from 1990 to 1993.  I have coached programs with policy and parli at Regis University (1999-2003) and Mercer University (2003-2009). 

Framework –   I am willing to listen to debates about how I should judge and how I evaluate specific issues.  Be clear about what criteria I should use and if you want to transform our activity be sure to explain how a vote for you will be meaningful.  If you want me to be a policymaker, then offer reasons for why that approach is best.  I am pretty open to considering widely differing judging paradigms and I’ll try to adjust my approach to judging to whichever criteria or framework wins. 

Procedural issues and T – On T, good explanations are substantially better than a dozen blips.  Aff, offer a counter-interpretation or be sure you are meeting their definition.  Neg, I’m kind of old school and I like a violation and standards and voters.  I have a pretty high threshold for voting on non-T procedurals such as A spec. I generally only vote there if there is really serious in round abuse happening or if it is grossly mishandled by the Aff. I’d rather you run the c/plan to prove the abuse than say how hypothetically they might have tried to avoid it. That noted, I do think running non-T procedurals is a fantastic way to leverage link ground.  They also work quite well as a time suck. Independent voting issues are a sore spot for me. I don’t like rounds where there are six or eight ivis on both sides and none have been explained beyond a tag or unpacked in any way.  If you go for an ivi, you should be spending a good chunk of time explaining in the final rebuttal why the ivi should decide the round. Does debate become more fair, educational etc. as an activity in a universe where you win the ivi?  I tend to prefer throwing out the argument over punishing the team so keep that in mind before you go all in on a multiple perms are evil strategy.  

Counter plans – I expect that by the last rebuttal the negative strategy is cohesive. I am not particularly fond of having to do evaluation work when both sides extend theory blocks without ever engaging the other teams’ arguments. I have judged too many rounds when both sides are extending dropped arguments by the other side on PICs, Conditionality,etc. I am left in the position of comparing drops by both teams and that sucks for me. Engage the arguments made by the other team and if you expect me to pull the trigger on theory you better be ahead. I think cplan + disad is tried and true. If you capture most of case and avoid the disad you are probably going to win. Aff teams – generate some offense – explain solvency deficits – and if your Aff is critical I’d spend a lot of time explaining if the cplan does not get the K part very well.

Kritiks – I evaluate them based on how they are developed in the round. If the K is really just a solvency mitigator or linear disad then I would obviously not weigh it as a framework question. If you explain how the kritik functions outside of policy questions, then I will evaluate it prior to substantive issues such as solvency and disads. I usually take Aff perms to a K as advocacy unless they are flagged as tests of competition.

Case Debate – I could care less if there is a robust on case debate or not.  If you want the 1NC to have 8 minutes off case that’s cool.  If you have twenty solvency turns that’s fine too.  Whatever works for you. 

Style – I really dislike teams that string together eight or ten blips without any explanation after them. It makes it impossible for me to get everything.  Speed is fine, but give me a little pen time.  As long as each tag has a sentence after, it should be fine.  But if you spew out ten tags with zero analysis don’t expect fantastic speaks.

Ld paradigm- 

email: avery.eddy54@gmail.com add me to the email chain yo

Style: I debate LD at Houston County and have qualified for both state and nationals in the activity. I'm comfortable with any style of debate you want to run. On one hand- I do understand the necessity to uphold the "integrity" of the activity through holding it to its roots in traditional debate. On the other- I am a progressive debater by coaching and personally enjoy a good progressive round. I have debated on both the national and lay circuits.

Kritik: I love k's- but I expect them to be run well (except anthro bc duh I'm human anf idc ab animals lol) . I wil ask for your lit at the end of the round if it sounds "fishy" or like you don't know what you're talking about. The advantage of the K is the engagement of dominating ideas and structures. It is not a way to cheat the round. 

Theory: I will vote on theory- once again, if run well

RVI's are weird but I buy them occasionally. Be cautious.

Plans and CPs: plans and counterplans need a clear advocacy.  Ambiguity is bad but if the other team doesn't say that I'll still vote for you. Moral of the story- ask the status of the cp if it seems nebulous and run a t shell OR if you are the one with the nebulous plan/cp... don't do that. I'll be v sad. 

Standing: No standing prefs. Tbh I sit for speeches if the judge will let me so I really couldn't care less where or if you stand, sit, lay etc as long as you aren't standing, sitting, or laying on my laptop or flow. 

Tech>truth but I will buy reasonability in most cases where it is reasonable as long as you or the other team brings it up

speed: I spread. That can either hurt or help you b/c I know how it should sound. Slow down for tags and authors. Always ask the other team if they can handle speed, if they say no, slow down. I will say clead exactly 3 times, after that I doc speaker points and stop flowing. If you spread- you should flash. If you email chain, add me. If you share a speech doc make sure you state what is not read and what is- anything else is cheating plain and simple. 

Speaker points: Because female and minority debaters have been emprically proven to lose points at for aggressive debate- I will add speaker points for your aggression. Don't attack each other. Don't be rude. Attack your arguments. Scream, yell, Alex Jones your way through it. Show me the side of your speaking that prejudice takes away from you.  Reclaim your aggression in this round. 

I have competed in Lincoln-Douglas for 4 years and judged for 5 years (various events). I am a pre-law junior at the University of Georgia with a major in English and minor in Philosophy in the hopes of being a lawyer in the Air Force (JAG).

• I enjoy structured, stimulating, and thoughtful debates. As a competitor, I would hope that you care about the reception of your case as much as you care about winning.

• Please do not treat debate as a monolith: have fun and push the boundaries. Any “wild” strategy you want to try is welcome and I encourage you to do so. If you are on your third round of the day and are beginning to feel spent, imagine how a judge might feel. Allow me to enjoy your speech fully and try to stray away from pre-made cases that always seem to miss an integral part of your speech--you.

• Because of the comment above, I expect debaters to bow heavily to the art of speech. Not only do I want you to be clear, coherent, and concise (they aren’t synonymous, trust me), but I want you to be persuasive. If you give a speech and think to yourself, “I wouldn’t vote for a president if they spoke like that”, then I’m going to have a hard time voting for you as well. I don’t expect you to be prepared for presidency while you’re still in high school, but I expect you to portray/feign the same skill they have: confidence. Speak as fast as you want, but if you haven’t practiced enough in order to guarantee that you are still presenting a thoughtful speech, rethink your strategy.

Claim. Link. Warrant. Impacts. Throughout the entirety of your case, I will always look for these. No single facet is more important than the other, so I expect there to be heavy thought put into these categories. Understand that anyone can read an evidence card and that when you don’t apply links and warrants to your claim, you remove your agency in the matter. Own your case. Your opponent as well as myself are capable of reading your cards, you have the power to make them meaningful to your position.

Framework: If your competing in Lincoln-Douglas, I can not stress the importance of framework debate (unless you have explicitly stated otherwise it being a non-issue).

Philosophy: True to the minor that I am studying, I enjoy philosophy. I would love to see some in your cases, but will be

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

I would say that I'm pretty open about what kinds of arguments I will listen to so I'll just give some likes and dislikes to make debating in front of me easier.

Likes:

Clear links and impacts. I have seen high level debates where people have a lot of great stuff but it's either out of nowhere or I'm not told what to do with it. Have a weighing mech or something similar and then use it.

Arguments that would make sense outside of debate. I'm not necessarily opposed to fiat, but I think a lot of people get really into debate-world and forget that reality is still relevant. I'm okay with fiat being used, but I'll definitely consider probability weighing if it's brought up. That being said, if you're running something like...ironically or as a parody I'm not necessarily opposed. I've run Ks that the whole point was aliens=capitalism. Just tell me what it means.

If you have a plantext, perm text, or any kind of text like that, and you give the other team a copy, make me one too. It just makes my life easier.

Weigh things at the end of the round. Don't make me do it, please or you might not like my result.

Dislikes:

Spreading. I can listen to speed--I've debate 8 years. But I have never seen a single round where it was necessary. Most spreaders tend to say the same 3 arguments 5 ways, so just only have 3 good arguments. If your strat is to spread out the other team by making 15 blipped arguments and then expanding on the 3 that were dropped just be better at defending 3 good arguments. I won't vote you down on this, but I might miss something you say and I'll definitely dock speaks.

Anything homophobic/racist/sexist ect. If someone tells you their pronouns use them. If you think you'll throw a debater of color off by saying something racist, don't. If it's offensive enough I might just vote you down on that even if you won on your flow. In the same vein, I'm not the kind of judge who will vote up edgy stuff like "genocide good actually".

Theory arguments that seem false on face: I'm not opposed to theory arguments. Some of them have changed my mind actually. But if you run a T on every word of the resolution, my bar to clear for kicking them is gonna be pretty low. Basically any version of "run 14 time sucks instead of being good at defending my arguments" is gonna be annoying to me. In the same vein, multi condo bad is something I'll vote on pretty easily if brought up. One or two kickable arguments is one thing, but again, 14 arguments you kick in the neg block is something I'll definitely buy the neg team saying isn't really fair for them.

In general, the type of argument doesn't matter as a matter of personal preference, so much as that both teams are given the ability to debate. The person with better arguments will usually win in front of me, not the person who came up with some off the wall strat to not have to debate.

I was an avid debater/speaker for the second half of my high school career. I had interest in furthering my experience so I enlist my help to my old coach and judge for the Valdosta Wildcats. Please ask me in person about my preferences. I will not share personal preference for the topics I judge on. Whether it's speech or debate events, I take great pride in seeing young debaters/speakers grow and develop their craft.

I look for rational, linear argumentation. Please do not advance contentions/make arguments without providing adequate warrant/evidence. Please avoid negating your own argument(s) with circular or incomplete warrants/reasoning. Please do not abuse your opponent. Civility will gain much more than overly agressive pursuit. Spreading is perhaps fine, but it had better consist of completed arguments (claim AND warrant) rather than scatter gun approaches designed as insurmountable "gotcha" gimmicks to merely trap your opponents into "dropping" arguments. If your claims and warrants don't actually WORK, then I'm highly unlikely to count them as actual arguments, and your opponent cannot drop arguments that weren't completed on your part. Also, if your speed is so rapid that I cannot flow it, then those are arguments you didn't successfully make, and which your opponent cannot actually "drop." Please do not present me with "theater of the absurd" contentions that are off topic or so bizzarely twisted that they are abusive to your opponent. Such tactics will not be rewarded as voters. Off time road mapping is, to me, highly suspect, as it can quickly appear to be an attempt to abuse the time constraints and thus abuse one's opponent, and leaves an overall bad taste in my mouth (not to mention in the mouth/mouths of your opponent/opponents). If you just MUST off time road map, then, of course, you will want to keep it to a minimum, .... but be aware that really ANY of it appears to me to be suspect/abusive. Please contain your claims and warrants to terms and phrases whose definitions you FULLY understand, and with which you are comfortable and fluent in pronouncing. Just because it is on the card doesn't mean it can't seriously break up your flow if you mis pronounce it or wholly or partially misunderstand all the implications it has. DO flow your opponents' arguments carefully, and feel free to turn claims that aren't warranted, or that are poorly warranted. Being able to so do with terms used by an opponent who clearly doesn't understand ALL implications, without being a wiseacre about it are often rewarded in voting.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'