South Carolina District Tournament
2019 — SC/US
LD Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideBackground Info
I have judged for high school debate tournaments for 10 years, and genuinely enjoy doing so. LD is by far my favorite event, because it is so beautifully structured, and requires significant thought and preparation and analysis.
In my day job, I'm a lawyer, but not a courtroom litigator. I'm not impressed by snarky CX strategies or ad hominem attacks during rebuttals. Your goal during CX & rebuttals is either to clarify information provided or to poke holes in your opponent's arguments, not to show off how clever you think you are. If you are in fact very clever, it will be evident to me based on your questions and arguments during the round.
Approach
I am a traditional flow judge. This should be a value debate. I want there to be a good clash, and I want each debater to have sufficient contentions to support his or her chosen VP/VC (so a kritik will probably turn me off). The evidence should be legitimate, and it should link to the contentions and then up to the VP/VC/resolution without me having to twist my brain sideways to figure out the links. Don't spoon feed me, but DO make sure it's addressed in your framework, because I won't assume a link exists if you don't mention it during the round.
The number of contentions is less important to me than the strength and validity of each one. It's possible to argue a winning case with only two contentions instead of nine, as long as they're well-researched and well-presented with great links to your value structure.
Also - even though I'm flowing your arguments, it's not an all-or-nothing round based on the flow. I'm definitely NOT persuaded by a debater who says "well, my opponent dropped my 4th contention so that argument carries through the debate and therefore I win the entire round" - because maybe your 4th contention was so worthless your opponent didn't see any need to waste time refuting it (for example). My point is, you won't lose just because you fail to rebut every single point your opponent makes; and you won't win just because your opponent fails to rebut every single point you raise. I'm flowing your cases, but my decision for each round is not limited ONLY to the specifics of the flow.
You will impress me much more with quick-thinking analysis of and response to your opponent's arguments than with a well-written constructive case (although the latter should be a given at this level of competition). I am not, on the other hand, going to be at all impressed by esoteric theoretic non-topical pollutificationism (although it can be entertaining, it won't win you the round).
I am able to understand extremely fast speech as long as you articulate your words clearly and remember to breathe. That said, IF YOU SPREAD - I WILL PROBABLY DROP YOU.
I am an ex-traditional college policy debater (Stock issues) and high school Lincoln-Douglas debater (Values) that has been coaching LD since 2019. I have judged Lincoln-Douglas debate off and on since 1994.
Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn my ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.
Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see evidence.
Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.
Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.
Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructive.
Philosophy: It's been labeled value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.
Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.
Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met the threshold. Write the ballot for me.
PFD/BQ: I have judged PFD and Big Questions debate as well.
I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point key words as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.
I did Lincoln Douglas at Bob Jones Academy and enjoyed modest success at the state level. I am an "old-school" LDer. I want clear clash and I want reasoning to prevail. I don't necessarily mind fast-paced debate, but you better make sure you use clear diction. If I do not hear your third sub-point of your third contention, that's on you.
Background:
I graduated high school in 2014 and competed mainly in LD (Nats qualifier) and PFD. However, I also competed in extemp, impromptu, congress, and surprisingly policy. I'm currently working in the Public Relations and Social Media realm. I have an MBA and fairly in-depth knowledge in public policy, the business world, and history.
Preferences for the round:
LD: I prefer traditional philosophical and value oriented debate. This is the roots of LD and I much prefer this to the PF-esque LD rounds I've seen become the norm. I prefer discussions of the rational or the driving force rather than card battles over the implementation.
PFD: Give me a measuring system for how to judge the round. Unlike LD there are no values, so you must tell me what measuring system to use and why it is preferred to your opponent's system.
Generic debate preferences:
As far as progressive debate tactics vs traditional debate tactics, I have no real preference and am open to voting for kritics, etc. Speed is not a problem for me and neither is spreading. However if you do decide to use progressive tactics, I have a few caveats. Don't be abusive, clearly explain your argument/warrant/impact, and you must be articulate. If you are not understandable, I will stop flowing until you are able to be understood (this is still about the art of communication not just about speed reading). A round where debaters will receive high speaker points will include substantive argumentation supported by reputable sources, will have clear value clash, clearly link to values (LD) and the speakers will present the claim, warrant, and impact of each argument. I'm a traditional flow judge so I'm not a fan of dropped arguments. If there is a dropped argument, tell me what was dropped and why that drop is important. Not every argument carries the same weight so just because an argument was dropped, it does not mean that you instantly win or lose. It depends on the argument that was dropped. As far as organization of your speeches, signposting is a must but especially if you are running 3-4 contention cases with many cards.
Timing on your phone is fine with me and honestly every debater should be self timing. Reading cases and evidence off your computer is fine. However if your computer crashes, have a hard copy of your case and evidence available so that you can continue the round.
CX is for breaking down your opponent's case and logic. Use it wisely and do not waste time with pointless questions or questions that do not advance your goal. CX is not an extra 3 minutes to give a speech furthering your constructive.
Things that increase your speaker points:
Good understanding and use of philosophy. Strategic use of CX.
Things that lower your speaker points:
Definition battles (I think I can only remember 1 instance where the definition was truly that important to the result of the round).
Not knowing when to move on from a question that has been asked and answered in CX (just because you didn't get the answer you wanted does not mean that the opponent hasn't answered the question).
Don't attempt to box opponent into defending or advocating for something that is extra-resolutional (for example forcing opponent to create a viable plan of implementation instead of defending the theory of an action).
Being rude, abusive, et al.
PFD is my stock and trade. I competed from 2006-2009 at all levels. My partner and I were among the top 18 teams at the 2009 NFL National Tournament in Birmingham, Alabama. Public Forum debate is the "common man's" debate. This means that there should be clear voters and impacts. Evidence battles are policy debate and have NO place in PFD. Debaters should aim for persuasion over coercion by force and for logic over a litany of sped red sources. Strong warrants; however, are equally critical for without them any argument is left without a leg to stand on. As far as rules are concerned I am not a referee, but I am familiar with the rule book. If you see a counterplan, tell me! If your opponents brought up new evidence or new arguments when they shouldn't, tell me! I WILL NOT connect dots for you; this makes it your obligation to draw attention to any/all mistakes that your opponents make in their handling of the round.
When it comes to LD..... I want to see that you stay on topic. Tangential arguments are great but in moderation if and/when they have a strong link to the resolution. I want CLEAR voters and you MUST link them back to whatever value structure you want me to use for weighing that round. I also respect good clash. Substance is valued over style or delivery but if you make yourself hard to follow then it is not my obligation to connect dots for you. I judge off the flow but WEIGHING is VERY IMPRORTANT!
When it comes to Congress..... Speeches should be clear, and impactful with specific credible evidence. Do not expect that I care about what you are saying. Make me care! This goes for your tone and impact statements as well. Participation in questioning is an absolute must, but quality matters more than quantity. If you can show clash that is an added bonus. It is, after all, Congressional DEBATE, not congressional oratory or extemp. Clash helps to clarify your position in comparison to other speakers and provides for a much more watchable/enjoyable experience overall.
I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.
Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.
Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.
Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.
Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.
Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.
Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.
Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.
Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.
PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.
I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.
General Thoughts
No matter what event I am judging, I look for some of the same basics. I try to be prepared and professional-you should be too. You will not be rewarded for being obviously unprepared, unprofessional, or for wasting my (or your competitor's) time. No matter what event, good presentation will be rewarded.
Public Forum Debate
In general, you should be clear both in what you are saying and how you are saying it. While I do flow the round, I decide the round primarily on which team more effectively convinced me they were correct. Your words, demeanor, and speaking all factor into this. Presentation is important to me. I prefer that you present your case to the room, not your laptop or paper. The more time you spend looking down, the less time you get to truly sell me your case.
PFD is meant to be accessible to the average person. Using a lot of debate jargon or odd argumentation theories will not win me over. I prefer a brisk, but conversational speed. If you speak so fast that I can't flow your arguments, how am I supposed to weigh them to decide the round.
Arguments should be well thought out and supported by evidence. They should be apparent and easy to hear. Use a variety of sources, don't just stick to one or two cards throughout the entire debate, especially if they are not the most current.
I decide the round based on what was presented in that round, and that round only. As long as you can clearly articulate your arguments with sound sources and argumentation, I will buy-in to them. My personal opinions do not matter when I am deciding a round-only what you as competitors say factors into my decision.
I do keep time in the round, but I am not a stickler. Time yourselves, time your partners, time your opponents. If you go over time by a few seconds to finish a thought, that's OK. Just don't abuse it. And keep off-time roadmaps to a minimum.
Congressional Debate
I know paradigms aren't as common in congressional debate as in other forms of debate, but for clarity and consistency's sake, here are some of my thoughts on congress.
Most of the same principles still apply-present your speech to the chamber, not your laptop or paper. Convincing me is all the more important since your only get three minutes per speech. I do tend to weigh presentation more heavily in a congress chamber than in PFD or LD. You should not speak so fast I have a difficult time following your case. It is paramount you are clear and effective in your speaking.
Specific to congress, I want you to take on the role of a representative (or senator). You will get points for being mindful of "your constituents" and generally acting as if you are representing the American populous. Congress is not really the event for jargon or odd theories of argumentation-it is a time to debate real issues that are faced by real people everyday.
Additionally, be active in chamber. Don't just give your speech, answer some questions, and sit there until the next bill. Show me that your are invested in the debate taking place-or at least are pretending to be invested in it.
Presiding has no out-sized impact on your rankings. If you preside really well it will be as if you gave a really good speech. If you preside not so well, it will be as if you gave a not so great speech. Just because your preside does not mean you are guaranteed to be ranked, but it does not mean you will never be ranked. It's all a part of congressional debate. Be memorable-after all you're in a chamber with many other competitors. At the end of the day, the best all around competitor in the chamber will get the best rank on my ballot.
World Schools Debate
In general, I look for the same things in World School as I do in other debate styles-be clear, be consistent, have good facts, and convince me why you are correct. However, World Schools Debate is its own distinct form of debate and should be treated as such. Adhering to the specific rules and style of World Schools Debate is a must in order to get the best score possible. Don't turn this into three-person Policy, PFD, or LD.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
I judge Lincoln-Douglas the least out of the three events listed here. In general, the same rules apply-be clear, be consistent, have good facts, and convince me why you are correct. The competitor that does this the best will win the round.
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, I am one judge for one round. These are my opinions, and everyone has their own. Don't read too much into this. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational experience. I hope your experience is both fun and rewarding, no matter the result.
Good luck!
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
I flow each speech intensely and, as a result, use my flow as my primary decision-rendering tool. The flow is especially important to me when deciding between two debaters with nearly equal performances. I also value clear, distinct voter issues and look for debaters to use voter issues to connect multiple ideas across the debate. Additionally, I look for clear frameworks to set up the round for each debater and for each debater to use these frameworks to present deep analyses of the main issues in the round.
In general, I prefer you speak no faster than a brisk, conversational pace. Trying to “out-speed” your opponent or overwhelm them by spreading will not earn you points in my book. If you speak so quickly I cannot easily gather your main points, how am I supposed to flow them and weigh them in the round?
Congressional Debate
Congressional debate is about how you present yourself for the entire session, not just while you are speaking. As such, I am paying attention to everything. You should be active in the chamber, without overpowering the other competitors. One excellent speech and a handful of great questions will not always outweigh multiple good speeches and several questions.
Congressional Debate is just as much about the debating as it is the presentation. According to that, I weigh both what you say and how you say it equally. I weigh all speeches the same—a constructive speech that effectively sets up the debate and a crystallization speech that details the main issues of the debate are equally as effective and powerful.
My judging style doesn’t change when I am a parliamentarian—I look for the same aspects, just with the added benefit of observing for more than one session. As such, I prefer to see consistent activity across all sessions, not just one. I rely on the presiding officer to run the chamber quickly, correctly, and effectively. In general, I will only intervene if a major error occurs.
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, I am just one judge with one set of opinions. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational activity. I hope your experience is rewarding, educational, and, above all else, fun.
Good luck!