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.

Conflicted:

Kamiak (all teams)

quick prefs:

performance/id pol k - 1
structural k - 1
theory - 2
larp/policy - 2
(LD) phil - 3
(LD) trix - 4

background:

I debated for Kamiak HS in Mukilteo, WA and briefly debated for Wake Forest. I started debate in middle school, and throughout my career, I have earned 17 total TOC bids, qualifying in both LD (3 times) and Policy (1 time) and most recently cleared to quarterfinals of GSU in 2019 (my only college tourney). I have experience in both policy and LD debate on both the local and national circuit. I primarily read kritikal arguments, but trust and believe I can follow you and have experience in policy, phil, and theory stuff.

THIS PARADIGM IS WRITTEN FOR POLICY BUT MOST THINGS IN HERE APPLY TO LD TOO. LD SPECIFIC THINGS ARE NOTED AS SUCH.

pre round:

yes put me on the chain (emailnikob@gmail.com)

Pronouns: black/black or they/them

SPEAKS

[Voices Update] - In round robins speaks matter more, so I will give actual speaks. None of the extras apply, but the minuses certainly do.

Speaks are wack and arbitrary and I don't think they are a good tiebreaker. I wish tournaments would use opp wins as the first tiebreaker instead and I will die on that hill. With that being said, I'm a bit of a speaks fairy unless you do something blatantly offensive in which case speaks will go down down down down down faster than Jay Sean can sing it. And, if you don't get that reference then strike me ;)

+2 speaks if you bring me iced coffee w/ sugar and lots of cream because judging is wayyyy more tiring than competing

+1 speaker point for 2 well executed West Wing references throughout the debate - tell me what they were after your speech so I can keep track or in case I miss it.

+.5 speaker points if youre in LD and you say "we meet" just because I think its wack that some judges care enough to take away speaks, and as someone who did both events it really annoyed me.

-1 speaker point if you misgender your opponent and they don't call it out. Repeated violations especially if its called out will lead to larger "punishments" or whatever.

-5 speaker points for saying "I'm not racist but..." or any variation.

random musings:

tech > truth, but tech without some truth is rarely enough

(LD only) good tricks debate makes judging easy bad tricks debate makes judging hell // [post camp update] and I will not vote on shoes theory or any other theoretical violation about your opponents clothing and/or appearance (identity args exempt). Arguments like shoes theory and etc. are antithetical to the purpose of this activity and I guarantee you will not like your speaks or the decision should you try to read them in front of me.

if you're gonna larp (straight up policy) please for the love of God weigh impacts

A dropped argument is a dropped argument, but it's up to you to tell me the implications of it.

sass and shade are fun...apparently people think I'm a rude debater, but who cares. If sassy/"rude"/shade is your thing then feel free to do you when I'm in the back.

actual stuff:

tl;dr - do you. I like to think I'm pretty tab and can evaluate any type of debate. Tech and the flow are probably more important to me than others who debated like I did in HS. I'm a pretty simple judge so if you weigh your impacts and tell a story in the 2nr/2ar you'll be fine.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: 7.5/10 - I've judged a fair amount this season but haven't been coaching as much so don't expect me to know what solvency advocates are shit or what the gold standard definition for reform is.

*Current LD topic - 6/10 - something about drones right?

k debate:

general

we love that. If this is your thing then go for it, but if it isn't please don't make me sit through 2 hours of a bad k debate. I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac. Also, chances are I understand and am familiar with your buzz words, but that doesn't mean you should rely on them to win the round. If I can't explain to the other team why their aff, performance, or implicit assumptions in the 1AC/resolution are problematic then it will almost always be an aff ballot. For the aff, I never understood why debaters don't go for the impact turn strat against certain K's. Obviously, I don't condone teams standing up and saying things like racism/sexism/etc. good, but going for cap good, fem IR bad, etc. is fine. Lastly, sometimes I feel as if 2as get so focused on answering the K that they forget to win that their aff is in some way a good departure from the status quo, which is to say please extend your offense in the 2ar.

Clash Rounds

For K aff teams, if you are losing my ballot to cap you are probably doing a lot of things wrong. I think most fwk/cap teams I've seen and most of those rounds I've been in has been underdeveloped on the cap side. The 2ac, if done correctly, should pretty much shut down the cap route. There's should be almost no way the 2n knows more about your theory and it's interactions with cap than the 2a does, which should make those debates pretty easy for you to get my ballot. Framework on the other hand...I feel like k aff teams need to do a significantly better job defending a model of debate, winning debate is bad, winning the aff is a prior question to the resolution, or etc. I tend to vote for framework in clash rounds (not because I enjoy or ideologically agree with it), but because the ^ things are often not executed well. Framework teams, please make sure the arguments the 2nr goes for are somewhere in the block and not just the same tired canned 2nr that somebody stole from Hemanth. Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot). I think procedural fairness is an impact, and it will be somewhat of a hard sell to convince me otherwise absent the aff team putting in some work; this doesn't mean I won't vote on structural fairness ow or impact turns, but rather that you actually need to warrant, explain and extend those arguments. I'd much rather see a framework 2nr on limits/truth testing/procedural fairness than skills and policy education, but hey that's just me. I also think that framework teams need to engage in case significantly better than what most teams currently do. Tbh probably slightly better for policy teams in k aff v. fwk rounds and slightly better for k teams in policy aff v. k rounds.

k v. k rounds

I got u...win your theory of power, framing and relevant offense.

policy(LD - LARP):

weigh weigh weigh weigh! I think more than any other stylistic approach to debate, policy teams NEED to do more comparative weighing. You will likely be unhappy with my decision if I can't point to specific points on my flow to weigh between your competing nuke war/extinction/etc. scenarios. I love watching policy teams who have nuanced, fun and creative impact scenarios. Some personal preferences for policy rounds are below -

Judge kick/choice is just not a thing. I'm still baffled how teams win arguments on this; it always seemed like lazy debating to me, and you are probably better off investing that time on other parts of the flow. Obviously if its conceded I won't hack against it, but I can't promise it won't be reflected in your speaks. I think strategic 2nrs will know when to go for the CP and when to kick it and defend the squo, so I'm not inclined to do that work for you.

Live by the flow, die by the flow...I think I'm a pretty well-informed person when it comes to politics/IR, but I probably won't know enough to fill in the gaps of actual nuanced scenario analysis which means you need to weigh and make the arguments you want to hear in the RFD.

I'd much rather watch an engaging 3 off policy strat then sit through watching some poor 1nr try to kick 12 of the 14 off read.

T: I fucking love T. Go for it in front of me. Go for it often in front of me. Go for it well in front of me. Biggest mistakes I see teams going for T in front of me do if forget to extend internal links to their impacts and that's the tea (pun intended). If youre a "K team" and you beat a policy team on T let's just say you'll like your speaks. I think one of the reasons I find framework ideologically ridiculous is because I've seen some really non-T policy affs and I always get indignant - like the conditions aff on this topic or the Saudi aff on last years J/F LD topic.

(LD Only) Phil:

Usually pretty simple debates imho, but make sure you respond to your opponents fw justifications as well as extend your own. After judging almost nothing but phill working at NSD all summer, I feel like these rounds are nearly impossible to resolve absent actual responses/weighing. Also, I'd much rather watch a substantive framework debate between Kant and Hobbes than see someone use Hobbes to trigger linguistic skep and have to watch a six minute 2nr on it.

Theory:

down for anything - weigh standards and win an abuse story. Here are some defaults (obv up for debate) See my note at the top about certain types of LD friv theory. I should clarify that my threshold in theory is slightly higher in policy than in LD and I'm not as open to friv theory in policy. I think policy is a more educational activity, and I don't want to see it go down a similar path vis-a-vis theory.

No RVIs

Text over spirit

meta theory = theory

theory = K

competing interps

drop the arg

fairness = edu; both a voter

Coach for 20 years- judged all events. Important- link of claims back to value structure, moderate speaking pace is very much appreciated. I flow rounds and use the flow to guide my decision but do not drop debaters just for not extending all arguments cleanly. I like to hear logical fallacies called out as much as I like to hear logic employed in a round.

Anthony Berryhill (MBA, M.Phil., M.A., CSM, CSPO) | Judge Paradigm- updated 9/2/2023
email (for speech docs): anthony@elitecollegehacker.com

Experience:

• Professional background: Former Vice President of Learning (executive) at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm. Stanford (BA) and Yale (PhD Candidate) alumnus--both in political science with a focus on contemporary political theory
• Current job: Running college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com.
• Recent Debate Career Highlights: Coach of 3 national champions (College PF, HS LD @ 2019 NCFL, HS PF - International TOC) | 6x LD Wording Committee member | NSDA Final Round Judge (Policy 2022, LD 2019-2022) | Former Managing Director at VBI | LD (TOC-NSDA-NCFL)/Extemp (NCFL)/Congress (NSDA Senate+NCFL) Qualified student @ Isidore Newman (1996-2000)

How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.

Style info:

Good debate is good debate - I have judged late TOC and NSDA elims of all styles and historically have very successfully coached traditional, policy, performance (at the LD TOC), and K debaters.

I strongly prefer debates about the topic, but can be convinced otherwise if you pull it off well.

Speed is ok if you are clear, avoid monotone, and if you include me on the speech docs.

How to win my ballot and get high points (preferences):

1. I strongly prefer debaters who do the work to cross apply, connect arguments together, extend evidence, signpost, and keep the flow clean. These students get wins and 29.5s+ with shocking consistency.
2. I look for the easiest, most clear way to vote, so I can minimize/avoid intervention (within reason). I am not a judge who will reconstruct a round and read cards for 30 min after a debate. That's the debaters' job. The more work you do to write the ballot, the more weight I will give to your interpretations and positions.
3. In-round analysis and smart strategy counts: Weighing, closing doors (telling me where you can lose and doing the hard work in detail to stop me from doing so), crystallization, and extensions will help you sway the ballot to your side.
4. Clarity matters: I am biased toward debaters who do the work to explain very complicated ideas in a simple, clear, and accessible way. As a former PhD in critical theory @ Yale, I appreciate good argumentation, depth, and skill at explanation.

What I strongly dislike/what you will want to avoid:

1. High Mental/Cognitive load/confusion -> judge intervention: It is in your interest to collapse arguments down in order to reduce how much I have to evaluate or consider. Otherwise, I get to be dangerously creative and decide how I want to vote, which I'd rather not do.

2. Misbehavior in rounds and debate politics. I judge by the "any given sunday" principle. I do not hack--and have never--hacked for anyone, any position, or at any time. Therefore any debater can win in front of me if they adapt. Make sure to avoid behavior that is out of bounds (swearing, use of inappropriate words, and other actions that parents/principals would disapprove).

3. A note about theory and identity arguments. If you need theory or identity based arguments, go for it. HOWEVER, frivolous theory or blippy arguments are not strategic in front of me.

Also, as one of the first students in circuit LD to run heavily race/gender based arguments (in the late 90s) I'm especially sensitive to students treating these arguments with the seriousness they demand.

Therefore, if you run identity arguments, please do not treat these as strategic pawns to be deployed without regard to ethics (i.e., I've seen some folks use racially insensitive language as a strategy, lie about misgendering/pronouns to trap opponents, claim that only people of a certain race can make certain positions, etc.) As an intersectionalist by training, I'm opposed to essentialism, stereotyping, and authenticity policing. Let's do none of that please.

Good luck!

Given that fascists are now doxing judges for their paradigms, I have removed mine from tabroom. My paradigm will not be publicly accessible until cybersecurity and digital access changes are made to protect judges and other members of the debate community. If you want to read my paradigm, feel free to email me at boalsj@gmail.com

Participated in Speech Events, PF Debate, and Congressional Debate. Presentation is key; avoid spreading in PF and LD.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

it's 2020 so new year new idea: I would really like if you and your opponent can work out the kind of debate you guys want to have and reach agreement on anything like disclosure, "progressive v. traditional", topicality, any theory interps you really care about, content warnings, etc. before the round. I won't penalize you if you can't reach agreement, I know it won't always work out, but if you can decide together what kind of round y'all want to have, I will boost both your speaks significantly. In outrounds or an RR I have no way to reward you for doing this but at that point I think you have enough experience to understand why this might lead to more fun+educational rounds. I will almost certainly defer to whatever you can agree to between each other, even if it seems different from my preferences below.

cheat sheet:

ENGAGE YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS ON FACE. DIRECTLY INTERACT. PLEASE. OTHERWISE YOU WILL HAVE AT LEAST A 50% CHANCE OF LOSING. DEBATE MEANS WHEN THEY MAKE AN ARGUMENT YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT IS WRONG NOT JUST READ 6 SICK THEORY SHELLS AND A K OF THEM REFERRING TO THEMSELVES AS "I." IF YOU DO THIS YOU CAN BEAT REALLY GOOD PEOPLE WHO ARE MAYBE DOING THINGS THAT WOULD TYPICALLY APPEAL TO ME MORE THAN HOW YOU TYPICALLY DEBATE.

Ks/High Theory/Critical Plan+CP: 1 (but really know what you're running, really understand it and have it be meaningful to you)

phil: 1 (but like a 3-4 if you don't want to engage with other philosophical traditions or debate against "progressive" styles)

irony/satire: 1 (if you have a good one with a clear ROTB/standard i ran these occasionally and really love them)

Larping/1980s Policy: 2 (1 if your evidence is really good, you think your position might actually be true, and you're prepared to respond to phil and critical argumentation, lower if your evidence is low quality. but hey you can actually make good nuke war links on jan/feb 2020 topic)

I always go all in on theory/I extend tricks+spikes as voters: 5 (I have voted for these before but I feel gross afterwards and will try not to)

your truth>tech, you actually have to persuade me that dropped arguments were good and true and matter, and while you can go fast please use that for quality over quantity of argumentation.

please put me on the email chain: joseph dot bruner at gmail dot com

actual LD paradigm:

I used to debate LD and other events at a small high school, then did college parli while doing PPE at Oxford University in the UK. I coached all the debate events for several years, then gradually got less involved while I was at Columbia University in New York for law school for the past 3 years. I've recently graduated and am now a (very junior, bar passed but admission pending) attorney who goes after megacorporations that do bad things for the state of California. I no longer actively coach as of 2019, but I like to come back around and judge sometimes. (I used to be terrible at using tabroom and have made like 4 accounts so this isn't my full judge history)

When I debated I preferred running usually dense philosophy type argumentation and/or critical stuff, often both at once, reading a lot of both analytic and continental philosophers but I also liked traditional policy stuff, especially interesting plans/cps. I’ve coached pretty much all styles of LD at this point. I am open to what you want to say - just explain and justify it to me.

Read that case you really love and hope you are getting the right judge for! I'm prepared to evaluate any sort of cohesive advocacy you want to put forward. I also defer pretty heavily to anything both debaters agree upon. I honestly hate seeing debaters have a case they put heart and soul into and instead running something they borrowed from a teammate or a camp labmate because they're afraid the judge won't like their actual stuff. And this happens all the time. If you want to methodologically challenge debate that's totally okay, but please provide your opponent a clear way to engage. Your case should probably claim some relationship to the topic but I am very open to the more abstract/metaphorical links debaters often use when running critical affs, and negs do need to convince me to vote on topicalty against non-topical positions. So yes I will vote on your model minority narrative, yes I will evaluate impacts under your elaborate fw that is 4 minutes of Kant and Descartes, it's all good, do your thing, just be prepared to defend it and explain to me why I should do vote for you with arguments that engage with your opponent's arguments.

But this has a few limits:

1. I generally have a high bar for pulling the trigger on theory, especially if that theory says drop the debater. I default to evaluating it as you actually having to persuade me to intervene in my role as an educator to stop the conduct. I would much prefer you engage your opponent's position on-face and generally do believe what people call performance, narrative, and critical positions are wholly amenable to being educationally debated and are an extremely valuable part of debate. However, I have judged a few really good rounds where I was successfully convinced the theory args one side was making generated offense to the other side's ROTB or standard. My presumption is also generally that theory spikes+tricks are not a real advocacy or position and you will have to do a lot of work to persuade me to vote on them. I think education is always a voter but there are many types of education accessed in many different ways and making the debate about whether you can cover all 20 of your opponent's standards across 3 theory shells is virtually always net loss to education. Fairness can maybe be a voter but debate is already structurally unfair in so many ways.

2. I do vote on topicality, but I usually am pretty lenient on T if Aff has disclosed the position or if a critical aff has a cool ethical/metaphorical/indirect link to the topic. I believe disclosure is good for debate and solves almost all of the problems inherent in debating obscure plans/cps/das. Also, I've never voted for neg on a T: whole res type argument. I could be persuaded if you argued it in a really cool way or you're debating a topic where plans don't really make sense though.

3. I have a high bar for evidence quality and your ability to explain your evidence. If you are using evidence to demonstrate something, that evidence (if analytical) should contain the claim you are trying to prove and an explanation of why that claim is true, and if your evidence is empirical/quantitative it should be backed by some sort of robust and reliable methodology. Too much evidence in circuit debate is just quoting bad stuff as an appeal to its non-existent authority. If your opponent is using evidence that contains no actual argument supporting the claim, i.e., no internal warrant, just tell me to reject that evidence. If your opponent is using bad or biased sources, say so. You should be prepared to explain in CX what your evidence claims and how it justifies that claim. It's definitely good to read other authors that answer your opponent's position but you should be doing work on why your opponent's evidence doesn't say what they claim it does, contains no real justification for what it claims, or has a fake/bad justification for what it claims. I typically read a lot of evidence during the debate and while making the decision, and if I find you've clearly misconstrued a card, I usually drop the argument that evidence is supporting.

4. Speed is cool (although I'm slowing down somewhat with more time away from the circuit), but put me on the email chain, be clear, and use your judgment to slow down for anything really important. Make sure to re-explain and impact arguments in your own words when you extend them if you want me to be voting on them. Your truth>tech. What I mean by this is that while I do keep a detailed flow and can handle fast circuit rounds (though I'm a little out of practice as of 2020), I primarily use the flow as a tool to compare two distinct positions rather than voting off of any individual dropped sub-argument. You can talk fast to reach a deeper, more interesting round but I am not really interested in voting for you because you had 11 links into extinction and only 10 of them got covered well in the 1AR. I will gut-check your theory (which I have a high bar for) and will probably not vote on things that are poorly warranted, poorly explained, poorly impacted or blatantly horrible/oppressive even if you are saying "extend" a lot.

5. Above all else, explain how your arguments work to me. I expect a kritik to have a well developed framework, link explanation, impact, and alternative, ideally quoting the AC directly back at me to explain how the aff is part of the problem. I would like a permutation to have a clear text of what the permutation is. For critical affs, I would like some kind of framing, clear signposting as to what the actual arguments you're making are, and a clear explanation of what you're solving/accomplishing by running the position and having me endorse it. I also think most phil frameworks are not explained as well as they could be either - why, exactly, are we looking to X to determine what is moral or necessary?

6. I 100% try to vote on who makes the superior arguments, but I am subconsciously influenced by delivery, just like every other human being. I'm letting you know right now that delivering arguments in a passionate way, with some humor, cool examples (not bad analogies), gut-wrenching emotional impacts, clever turns of phrase, etc., is quite possibly going to influence how I weigh those arguments when I make my final decision. I think this is probably true for 99.9% of judges but many don't admit it. I'm not gonna drop you because your opponent "spoke more persuasively" but I think when the flow is close and one person sounds like they're spitting fire and the other person is speaking in a mumbly monotone I usually end up feeling like the person with better delivery is making better arguments. I would apologize for being a dumb primate who feels emotions based on how they hear things but everyone else is a primate too so I'm valid.

7. Respect one another, but zealously and aggressively engage one another. No personal attacks, but irony, wit, sarcasm, and absurdity can go a long way. (No personal attacks includes not making assumptions about or attacking your opponent's identity, camp/school affiliation, debating style, etc.) I aim to counteract judges who discourage aggressive debating, especially when that aggressive debating is done by women, ethnic minorities, and other marginalized groups. Put your heart of the flow and show some real love for justice or hatred of injustice. Your speaks will go up. At the same time, please don't be hesitant about directly engaging and clashing with your opponent's advocacy instead of trying to preclude it, even if that advocacy involves lived experience you don't share. For example, I think one of the biggest disappointments in debate recently has been that most of the non-black debaters I have seen try to preclude afropess args using theory and/or framework instead of reading some of the many black authors who do not share that perspective. This preference that you make an effort to engage on-face or show some direct interaction with your arguments extends to other critical argumentation.

This is your show now. Show me what people who love justice or hate injustice should be doing. Show who you are on the flow and in your words. Seriously. I used to care a lot about the “correct” way people should debate but now I mostly care about whether you’re debating like you care. Care about your advocacy and your opponent’s advocacy and my understanding and the world around us and you’ll do great. If you're still reading this you've probably said you value justice 200 times so go tell me how to make some justice.

I'm happy to answer questions after the round or in general!

PF Paradigm

I did not debate PF but I've coached and judge a substantial amount of circuit PF over the years. If you see me in PF nowadays it's probably because I'm doing someone a favor but PF actually has grown on me, mainly b/c of Bilal Butt and Chase Brady.

Please do smart impact comparison in your final two speeches, including but not limited to timeframe, magnitude, probability analysis with respect to your impacts and your opponents impacts. It is not that strategic in front of me to repeat a cliched narrative about how the world works and expect me to just buy into it against a solid opposing team. Also I will generally assume lives outweigh all other impacts unless you explain why not. Weigh Weigh or go away

Because PF has become so focused on statistical evidence, if you have a piece of empirical evidence that’s important to my RFD, I will probably call it and look at it if the round is remotely close. If I find you are misconstruing that evidence, I may drop you right there. Please do not make me drop you because you misconstrued evidence; We will both be sad. Please also recognize the limits of empirical studies and supplement them with your own analysis.

Also, while I’m already a blasphemous truth over tech person, this goes even further in PF. If there’s ink on the flow but it’s not explained to me in a way that makes sense and sounds like it matters, it might as well not be on the flow. PF is too time constrained for every minor drop to equate to a fully conceded extension.

Congressional Debate

I run a fast and efficient chamber. I have been parliamentarian at local, state, and national tournaments, including being parliamentarian for NSDA and TOC outrounds. My goal today is to ensure vigorous clash and get us through as many speeches as possible.

But seriously I competed in Congress, did ok there, and had the privilege of coaching some of the best Congress kids in the nation when they were competing. I used to have a really long Congress paradigm but it got lost in the ether.

Please bring the heat and engage in very aggressive questioning and refutation of your opponents. The best legislators in the history of the United States did not merely show that their opponents were incorrect- they demonstrated that their positions were absurd and morally bankrupt. Please do not show me a round where everyone just reads prewritten speeches at the air.

Be collaborative - instead of repeating what other people on your side have said verbatim, acknowledge them and use their points to support your own argument.

Be mindful of the fact that in reality, if your law goes against the interests of large corporations, they will work hard to get it declared unconstitutional or exploit any possible available loophole.

Lastly, I know many Congressional debaters who are women and/or minorities are sometimes held to a frustrating double standard on many delivery and presentation issues. If you are afraid of being highly aggressive due to being perceived as *y, catty, or intimidating in comparison to white male debaters doing the same thing, you do not need to worry about that in front of me. You also do not need to worry about your use of humor causing you to be perceived as not taking the event seriously. And honestly, I really don't care if you wear dark/reserved colors, pantyhose, or a pearl necklace. Wear whatever you like yourself in.

Hello,

I will be entering law school the fall of 2024. In undergrad, I debated a few times, but most of my experience with debate comes from high school. There, I did policy debate for three years. Though I am most familiar with policy, I am a generalist in terms of my knowledge of the debate space, having judged rounds of PF, LD, and Congress in the past.

In debate, I care about the formation and presentation of the arguments. To put that clearly, you can use ANY type of argument so long as you effectively communicate your point. I typically do not tell debaters what types of arguments I prefer because I don't want them to conform to my likings. You should debate the way YOU feel most comfortable. When I say I am comfortable with any argument, I mean ANY! (Ks/Aff-Ks, DAs, T, Performance, etc.)

Here are a few notes:

1. You communicate between your partner (if not LD) and your opponents. For example, if you are spreading and your opponent has clearly indicated they can't follow your speed, I will dock speaker points. (I am comfortable with all speeds, so spreading is okay in my book, but it has to be interpretable by your opponent. Debate is an activity about the exchange of ideas, and speed should not inhibit that goal.)

2. There is no such thing as a common-sense argument. By this I mean, do not let anything go left-unsaid. A good tactic here is to go line by line on the flow. Oftentimes, we think we can bypass a point because the argument seems simplistic on its surface, but in reality, it has layers. If we ignore these nuances because they seem common sensical, we miss great chances to reveal nuance.

I think this is meaningful advice for any round because you never know what a judge will end up voting on. Now, I do not mean get lost in the minor details of your opponent's arguments. All I am saying is, engage truthfully and meaningfully with what your opponent is saying.

3. I believe in Low-Point Wins. Frankly, If you are not in a speech event (which debate is not) I do not care about how you speak. I care more about what you say and how it develops your argument not how articulate yourself. The best speaker does not always have the most syllogistically sound argument, and I want to respect this possibility.

Feel free to ask me about my paradigm before round!

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

I look for a solid flow of argument in a debate round. Is the moral value clear? Is there a clear Contention? Are the contentions backed by facts that come from credible sources and do they circle back to the value? I like to flow when I judge so I also watch to make sure no new contentions are brought into the argument during the final rebbuttles. I also look for good facts to back up contentions to make their argument strong.

I look to see if the students are professional and respectful to each other during Cross X and allow each other to speak.

Experienced LD/Speech Judge

Traditional but open to some K's or plans/CPs

Don't run theory as I will likely vote for the competitor with a more concrete argument

Short Version:

I debated in high school (very traditional policy) and college (parli, just one year). I teach English. While I coach LD, l prefer a good traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy. I look for solid clash of values throughout, and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards, and everything you discuss should be related to your framework.

Full Version:

Judging Style:

I really like to see good clash. I find it easiest to vote for you if you have a thoughtful, solid framework which is well supported by all of your contentions and evidence. Impacts are extremely important to me. While I think the best debate is traditional in style, I'm open to seeing creative approaches, but only to a limited extent. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, so I'm very comfortable with any philosophical arguments you might want to run. Feel free to be complex, but I will be able to tell if you misrepresent or misunderstand the philosophy.

Speaks:

I generally stick to a range of 26-29, with 26 being average or slightly below, 27 being decent, 28 being good, and 29 being excellent. I typically reserve 30 for persuasive, perfect speech. If you are being truly unnecessarily rude, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.

Speed:

For me, this is related to speaker points. I'm fine with speaking quickly, but believe that spreading has no place in debate and is, at its core, abusive. If you spread, I will drop you.

Flashing:

I'm fine if you want to flash your case, cards, whatever to your opponent, so long as there is mutual agreement. I'm not interested in reading your case, though. I will only evaluate you on what is spoken during the round. This is not an essay contest. The only material I will ask to see during or after the round might be specific cards, if questions about them become relevant to the debate.

Regarding time, just don't waste it. I don't typically count the time taken to flash toward prep, unless you're clearly taking advantage.

Ks

I don't generally love these, but I'm happy to entertain a really well constructed K. You'll have an uphill battle, you really need warrant, and I won't typically default away from the resolution, but you could still convince me that you deserve my vote with a good K.

DAs

I'm OK with these, but they need to be impacted. I tend to treat these as just another argument.

Theory:

I have a pretty low tolerance for these, but will accept a thoughtful theory shell, especially if there is a potentially clear instance of abuse. You need warrant, and should carefully explain interps.

Flex Prep/CX:

I will not allow the use of flex prep.

General Comments:

I've probably left out my thoughts on some aspects of debate, so please ask questions if you have them. I'll do my best to answer. What I'm really hoping to see is a sportsmanlike debate that is thoughtful. While there are some strategies that I believe are inherently abusive, I will at least hear you out if you make an earnest effort to have a good academic debate.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

How to win with me:

Debate is best done when all parties are focused on the heart of the debate topic. The debate loses meaning when non-essential elements distract from the crux of the debate; thus, the best debates come from people who are unwavering from the essential elements of their position at the foundation of the resolution. From there a good debater will reveal inconsistencies of their opponent's contentions and weigh their position against the opposition.

Another essential element of a proper debate is clarity. If clarity is lost so is the debate. Both parties must have clear understandable and coherent arguments for the debate to grow and develop. I value students who are able to break down complicated elements into digestible pieces, point out argument fallacies, and weigh points that stand with integrity.

How to lose me:

I can not flow points I can't understand. Do not spread with the speed of an auctioneer with me and hope to win. I will not vote for abusive arguments that narrow the focus of the debate so far you can't lose and your opponents can't win. I will not vote for theory-based briefs that assume the world exists in a vacuum or promote the victim based assertion that there is something inherently wrong with the resolution. I will not read your brief as you speak it. It is your responsibility to verbally communicate to the judge and your opponents. The debate is not an essay contest. If your main points boil down to ad hominine arguments I will flow to your opponents.

Ultimately debate is dialogue between people - judge included - Facilitate dialogue and win. Breach that dialogue and lose.

I am a parent judge. I have been judging Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum debate for about four years, as well as a few speech events here and there.

Please do not spread or run Kritiks. I generally take a traditional approach to the round. Policy debate strategies do not belong in LD and PF. I do not want to see stock issues, counterplans, or any other unwarranted strategy that does not belong in the style that it is assigned to.

I look for good clash, solid evidence, and a persuasive delivery respectively. Dropped arguments will hurt you. In LD I look for a strong relation between arguments and the value. The value criterion should adequately measure the value. Make sure to talk about why your value, criterion, and arguments are better than your opponent’s.

What will hurt you:

- disrespect (you will lose speaker points)

- yielding too much time

- Snarky attitudes

- continuing to talk even after I've let you complete your last sentence

Good luck and I can’t wait to watch some rounds!

About me: I competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate for 3 years for Northwest Guilford High School. I’ve qualified to NCFL Grand Nationals and reached Semifinals at Durham Academy My senior year. Currently a senior at Duke University. My pronouns are he/him/his

Conflicts: Northwest Guilford High School

Speed: I can handle a pretty brisk conversational pace, but keep in mind that the pace you choose to speak at directly trades off with me (and your competitor’s) ability to truly understand and write down what you are saying. I have zero experience with fast, nat-circuity type debate, so spreading is probably not the move. Slowing down at tags/authors/any important point you want to emphasize will go a long way towards making you more understandable and persuasive, and your speaks will show. If you speak fast in front of an inexperienced debater, expect speaks to suffer. If you are competing in an activity that focuses on engaging with competing ideas, why would you want to shy away from clash? Hiding arguments is not fun and makes debate a waste of time.

Framework: Framework matters as much as you’d like it to. Being marginally ahead on the V/VC Debate only matters if you explain the implications of your framework, and why it should inform my ballot. Your impacts should relate back to your framework, if they don’t Then I’m gonna be confused. Franework debates were my favorite as a competitor, yet it feels like almost nobody cares about framework these days. With that thought in mind, A well though out, creative framework that effectively advances your position will go a long way towards earning my ballot. Stock philosophies are great and have a lot of educational value, but I’d challenge you to think of something original and put your own creative spin on these philosophical issues. Debate is an educational activity after all; show me that you’ve really contemplated the topic and not just read about how 400 year old Englishmen thought about the topic.

Theory/T: I understand how theory/T works. That being said, I rarely ever engaged in this type of debate in high school. If you feel your competitor is being abusive, feel free to read it; I’ll do my best to evaluate it. However, keep in mind I’m definitely not the most experienced judge in these types of matters. If there’s clear abuse, I’m down to listen. Frivolous theory will just make everybody sad.

Plans/CPs: Unless your plan is whole-rez, you’re probably going to be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince me. CPs probably need to be VERY mutually exclusive, and it’s the Neg’s job to establish this from the 1NC. This is a very fundamental issue on a CP debate, so if you fail to explain how your CP is competitive and the Aff calls you out for it in the 1AR, I consider your extra spicy cards explaining how it’s conpetitive in the 2NR to be new. It’s not fair for the Aff’s first chance at responding to these issues to be the 2AR.

Kritiks: Not necessarily opposed per say, I just happen to have zero experience with this type of argumentation. Proceed at your own risk and be sure to be extremely detailed in your explanations because I probably haven’t read the literature

Tricks: No. just No

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round! I’m excited to hear what you have to say :)

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts. For email chains: anguse@live.unc.edu. I did LD for four years with North Meck HS and NCSSM. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and Math at UNC.

General

- Speed is fine up to the point where you have to resort to breathing techniques. This does not mean go the same speed you would and cause yourself to pass out.

- Especially in circuit debate – post rounding is a-ok by me. I know I don’t have as much experience with circuit LD, and so the more feedback I get and engagement on my judging, the better I think I am going to be in the future for it.

- I know this makes me sound super lay, but like, PLZ do not read me whatever boring stock util. case you have prepped for lay judges, I hear about enough of this on the local circuit – I want to see something exciting.

-Your job is to write my ballot for me.

Authors I am very comfortable with: DnG, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Foucault, Kant, Adorno.

Intervention

I take as minimal an approach to judge intervention as possible. However, there are certain standards for what I just will not accept:

-New in the 2; I won’t drop you but I don’t flow new arguments in the 2. Not flowing it means it didn’t happen.

-Blatantly false claims: racism good, climate change not real, etc.

Plans and CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of these sorts of debates but I’ll certainly put up with it. Just make sure you execute well.

Policy vs Policy: Compare evidence quality (authors, methodology, sample size, etc.). I could not possible care less about the number of cards you have compared to your opponent.

Topicality: CPs must be competitive. There are a few ways I have seen this violated:

- CP: do the AFF except some absurdly minimal aspect;

- CP not mutually exclusive with the AC

- Resolution doesn’t spec. an actor, but the CP only changes the actor. This is especially relevant to ACs which don’t provide a plan. This is just a more specific case of the first example and – I think – a more egregious violation.

Additionally, please give cards for T; I won’t drop you if you don’t, but your speaks will probably suffer. The more absurdly technical the T debate, the better. Conditional CPs are immensely cringe. I’m also fine with Nebel T, watching people cry about how they might not be able to read an absurdly specific plan is hilarious.

K Debate

I’m most comfortable with Cap Ks, but if you read me cards from Tankies, Maoists, or the like… RIP your speaks. An important note in K debate is please do not try to obfuscate your way to victory.

- Signpost and go line-by-line.

- The more explicit the link the better.

- What does the K do or accomplish concretely? (K-Affs especially)

- Unless it makes sense in lieu of your FW, I’ll prolyl dock your speaks for reading me HuffPo, etc.

- Give a framework for the K!

- If you struggle with providing examples when asked in CX, it probably tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll give you 30 speaks if you read some Neg-Dialectics K about how you should always negate because affirming always traps concepts in a fashion which runs opposite to the dialectical Idea of truth. It would be really funny and would make my day.

FW Debate

I’m probably most comfortable with this. I did a lot of Kant FWs in my time, so I’ll be very comfortable with those. Consequently, I am fine with the idea of not having impact calculus – but only in rounds where you have demonstrated that consequences need not be considered; the default in debate seems to be some sort of util.

I am not a fan of testing the plausibility of a theory based on how a majority of people feel about it (something about Ideology and so on and so forth *sniff*).

Meta-ethics are dope and cool.

I will not penalize you on neg. for just going insane on reading turns and conceding FW, unless you do something insanely stupid like concede a Kant FW and then read impact turns (which I have seen people do). Like???

LOCAL TOURNAMENTS: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WARRANT YOUR FW IN A SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. If you don’t, do not expect to get above a 28.

Theory Debates

Go ahead, but I don’t have a lot of experience here so don’t be surprised if it goes bad for you (I mean it will still be my fault, but just know it’s likely to happen). If you do read theory: PLEASE stay away from jargon! I am putting in the work to better understand the evaluation of theory debates, but I’m not quite there.

Spikes: fine. A prirois: cringe. NIBs: cringe. Burdens: fine. Triggers: cringe. I’m not chill with RVIs just yet until I feel I have a better handle on them. Sorry .

Debated for Hamilton High School. 2A for 3 years, 1A for 1 year

Housekeeping things

-Include me on the email chain: fanafu@gmail.com

-I won’t disclose until the room is put back in order.

TL;DR

Please explain your acronyms as I haven't judged many rounds on this topic.
Quality > Quantity. It's your debate, debate what you want (also means read args that you're comfortable on).

Love K's of any kind.

T/FW is alright, just make sure to impact everything.

DA/CPs are chill if they're specific.

Be understandable, do clash for me, do the work for me, esp. in last two speeches.

I listen to CX (even if it looks like I don't) and it is binding.

Flashing isn't prep, but excessive amounts of flashing might come off as stealing prep so be wary.

Debate well, don't be mean, don't be offensive, respect each other.

Speaker Points

20: you did something extremely offensive/disrespectful/hostile

27.5-28.4: mediocre; prob not breaking
28.5-28.9: good; maybe breaking 4-2
29-29.4: very good; prob breaking
29.5-30: excellent; top speaker quality

CX Specific Paradigm
Affirmatives--Any style or way you want to present your affirmative is fine with me, just be sure you can justify it. Admittedly, I am not well versed with performance-based aff, so please explain to me what your performance means in and out of the round. Affirmatives should at least talk about the topic and anti-topical affs are definitely not legit.

*new thing. I find myself increasingly less enjoying big-stick policy affs, mainly because the debates tend to be just overly fast and blippy. If you ARE planning on running those kinds of affs, then i would highly suggest making good extrapolations of internal link chains and impact probability analysis.

Case-- I usually go by the offense/defense paradigm here even though it's probably not realistic. I just find it easier to evaluate debates this way sans a very robust analysis of impact defense in the 2nr. Try not to contradict here; however, if you can contextualize your arguments well to the affirmative a case debate is very impressive to see. Try to avoid making this debate "not my [insert some author]" and actually have a contextualized debate here. Line by line analysis as opposed to long generic overviews are preferred.

Counterplans--You must have a good analysis of how you resolve the net benefit of the CP if you're going for it. Neg must explain how they are competitive and should be preferred over the affirmative. Evidence should be good and actually say what you want it to say if you want me to vote for you. Theory is often insufficient unless entirely dropped. Also I default to reject the arg on CP theory, unless specifically spun to be reject the team.

Disads-- Most DA’s are chill. They probably all have very tenuous link chains that can be exploited. So exploit them. Impact comparison is also very important. Tell me why I should care. For ptx specifically, don’t speed through it. Intrinsicness is probably true, but you still have to argue the theoretical implications for me to evaluate it.

Kritik--This is where I spent most my debate career. I think K's are good as long as you can explain them well. If you are personally passionate about an argument, and it shows, your speaker points will likely be higher (this goes for affirmatives as well). I tend to think arguments about identity in debate are important, and play an important part in effecting the community. That being said most of my experience is with the "high theory" side of K's. Regardless of what kind of critical argument you read, I will NOT do the work for you. Tell me what your K is, why it matters, and why I should vote for you. If your only link in the 2NR is a state bad link, then you're prob not on the winning side. K's should not be a sketchy attempt to dodge clash, find a way to clash with your opponent and make the debate productive for everyone. I won't kick the alt for you. Most other K tricks, while cheap shots, are acceptable.

Also the question of perms is always an issue in a K vs. K debate. Someone please tell me what the perm means in the round or tell me why a method vs. method debate doesn't get a permutation.

T/FW--I treat framework debates like I would any topicality debate. Be sure to impact out anything you go for otherwise I'll probably prefer their impacts. Reverse voting issues are dumb, but I'll still vote for them if done well. If against a non-traditional affirmative try to provide an interpretation where they could still raise there issue, and not out right exclude them. It will be an uphill battle if you come in with the "non-traditional affirmative are wrong" mindset. Otherwise treat T/FW like a DA, I want to see how they link, what that does, why that's bad, and why I should care.

Theory--Theory is often not enough for me to vote for you unless there is a serious violation or the other team just dropped it. Give me examples of how they violate and how that is effecting you. I have a high threshold for these arguments; however, am more often convinced by the "drop the argument, not the team" plea for theory.
Also for Condo specifically, I will probably not vote on it unless there's some serious abuse and it's well extrapolated in the 2AR.

Other stuff

• Flashing is not prep
• please clash
• jokes are cool
• caring about your arguments is cool
• don't be mean
• don't exclude people
• don't discriminate against people
• have fun
• be chill
• If you can make a joke about your existential dread, Malhar Patel, Tanzil Chowdhury, Nikpreet Singh, or Quinn Zapata, then you’ll get an extra .5 speaker point.

LD Paradigm

Defend your ethics and position with good references to evidence and impact comparisons, and I'll be pretty satisfied. If you have any specific questions, just ask me before round.

If, for some reason, you're treating this as a one-man policy debate, then read my CX paradigm above.

Hi everyone!

I am a parent judge and have only ever judged Congress before. I will be voting off who presents the more clear argument and who is able to prove their side best.

Hi! I’m Gautam.

Carroll Sr. HS, TX ’19

Duke University ’23

Email - gautamiyer28@gmail.com (add me to the email chain please)

Background - debated 3 years for Carroll Senior High in Southlake, TX, qualified to TFA state, NSDA nats, and TOC my senior year. Debated on both local and national circuits so familiar with traditional debate too.

General - I’m fine with whatever you want to run as long as it isn’t blatantly offensive. I mostly read LARP/policy style arguments and some theory, so I'll probably be best at evaluating those things. I'll probably be worst at evaluating tricks (ie burden affs with 4-minute underviews) so if you're reading tricky stuff take a second to explain the tricks and their implications. I'll vote for those arguments, but I'll have a lower threshold for what counts as a response. Additionally, I'm not that familiar with some critical literature (ie Bataille or Heidegger), so if you're reading stuff like that it would be helpful to spend more time explaining your position.

Defaults - I default to comparative worlds, reasonability, drop the arg, no RVIs, presuming aff, permissibility flows aff. I doubt I’ll ever have to use most of these.

Miscellaneous stuff -

• As a debater I was atrocious at permissibility, skep, truth testing in general, burdens, etc so if you want to read those args please explain them thoroughly
• I will vote on frivolous theory but will be more easily convinced by weaker answers or reasonability to things like formal clothes theory
• I won’t drop speaks regardless of what arg you read unless it’s offensive
• Good case debate is fun and will probably get you good speaks
• Disclosure is important and I will gladly vote on a disclosure shell
• Please send screenshots at the end of the round if you go for disclosure
• Compiling the doc is prep but emailing it, etc. is not
• I won’t flow CX unless asked

Past Experience

Debated at Hamilton High School (AZ) in Policy for 4 years.

Philosophy

I am fine with any arguments, but just make sure to articulate the warrants and engage in the debate on an at least somewhat resolutional level. That being said, I am a fan of Ks, but not so much theory/topicality. I will still buy all arguments, though, so run what you are comfortable with. I am not as concerned with the performance of the debate as opposed to the quality of the argumentation (unless of course the performance is a key part of the case)

General

Not gonna count random stuff as prep, but don’t take advantage of that and still make sure you’re not doing work if you’re not taking prep.

Roadmaps/signposting is a MUST, it will be very difficult to flow every argument otherwise, which may come back to hurt you in the end.

I will say clear and/or slow if you are incoherent - speaks get docked after the second time.

Speaker Point Distributions (I am more influenced by quality of argumentation than speaking performance):

30 — Nearly perfect, everything that needed to be covered was covered and articulated well

29.5 — Extremely well-articulated and thorough debate

29-29.5 — Strong, skilled arguments

28.5-29 — Solid

27.5-28.5 — Average, argumentation could have been better

Below 27.5 — Lots of work needs to be done, key arguments were not addressed or argued properly

Extra 0.5 speaker points for making me laugh or any UNC bashing

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

----------------------------------------

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Speak clearly, No spreading.

I have judged a couple dozen PF rounds and a handful of LD and speech rounds too. I am not a flow judge. I take good notes and enjoy a respectful and passionate round. I do not favor speed in speaking and if you lose me you will not likely win the round.

I am a lay judge with experience judging PF. No experience judging LD. If you speak too quickly, I won't understand you. I look for strong critical thinking skills rather than a barrage of loosely related arguments.

Carmen Kohn’s Paradigm

I have been judging speech and debate events since 2016. I am also currently the Director and Head Coach for Charlotte Catholic HS in NC.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

I enjoy both the ethical component of the discussions in LD and the current topicality of most PF topics. I appreciate the informative nature of these debates, especially in the current political climate.

I am a classic flow judge for both events and am looking for good clash between opponents. In LD, I place more emphasis on contentions rather than value, however, that evidence must clearly link back to the VC. I am also more interested in the impacts. A dropped contention is not automatic grounds for a win. It depends on the relevance of the argument. When rebutting, don't just extend the author's card. I am not writing down all of the authors. Please remind me of the evidence that was presented. I prefer the well-thought out, well-paced arguments. While debates are won based on evidence presented, I do find a direct correlation between technical speaking abilities and evidence offered. I also make a note of how professionally debaters present themselves and behave towards myself and each other.

I would classify myself as a advanced traditional lay judge. I am not a progressive judge. Do not run theory shells or any other "progressive" argument with me. While I do appreciate the occasional non-traditional argument, especially towards the end of the topic time frame, all cases should be realistic and applicable in the current environment in which we find ourselves. Please debate the current resolution.

Absolutely No Spreading!!! I cannot follow it, especially with online tournaments. You will lose the round. This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I feel there is no educational value to that in a competitive environment. You run the risk that I will not have caught all of your arguments and may miss a main point in my flow. Please keep technical jargon to a minimum also. Throwing around debate jargon and just cards identified by author gets too confusing to follow. And if you ask a question during cross-ex, please let your opponent answer and finish their sentences. It’s unprofessional to cut someone off. Signposts and taglines are always appreciated. I generally do not disclose or give oral RFD. I want time to review my notes. Debates where opponents respect each other and are having fun, arguing solid contentions, are the best ones to watch.

Congress:

I've just started judging Congress. My "comments" are usually summaries of your speeches. Occasional commentary on the delivery and/or content. Please interact with previously given speeches (by Rep name also) and don't just rehash a "first speech". If you can bring a new point to the discussion 6 speeches in, that is awesome.

I will give points to POs. I appreciate what is involved in POing. During nomination speeches, it can be assumed that a PO will run a "fast and efficient" chamber. No need to state the obvious. However, if that actually doesn't take place, a lower rank will result.

Good luck to all!!

This is my 3rd year judging high school LD. I judge based on what I can understand, so that is bad news for those who "spread" because I cannot evaluate the merits of your argument if I cannot follow the words in spite of my best effort. I prefer logically consistent arguments, supported by evidence. In real life, demagoguery often wins debates, but I have not yet met anybody polished enough to pull that off in any of the LD events that I have judged. It is a high bar but I have great expectations and respect for everybody who is brave enough to engage in a public verbal duel.

I debated at Northland Christian School on the Texas circuit and national circuit. I attended TFA State 4 times and TOC 3 times. I graduated in 2015.

I am fine with just about any arguments (obviously nothing morally repugnant). Speed is fine. I do struggle with dense philosophical positions, so slow down on tags or give me a quick overview in the rebuttal. As a debater, I enjoyed theory and util debates and feel most comfortable evaluating similar arguments, but proceed as you wish. Ask me any questions before the round and have fun!

Email chains are a tangible improvement to debate. RLarsen at desidancenetwork dot org. You can read my entire paradigm for bolded passages, as you would a card. Pronouns are he/him/”Judge”. The affirmative should have speech doc ready to be emailed by round start time. Please keep a local copy of speech recordings. In the event of a 30-second tech blip, recordings will be reviewed; no speeches will be redone, barring tournament policy. Debaters have the right to reserve CX start until receipt of marked speech doc.

--------------------

--------------------

(Long Version is for procrastinating non-debate work)

--------------------

--------------------

SHORT VERSION

(Pre-round Prep/Deadline Preffing): If you're a student doing your own prefs, you're best off reading the next two paragraphs and skimming my voting record. If you're a coach, you likely already know where to pref me.

Debate is a group of people engaging in performances. The nature of those debate performances (including my role as a judge) is settled by the competitors in the round with arguments. My default as a policy judge is to believe that those performances regard policymaking and that plans (/counterplans/alts/advocacies) create worlds with real impacts I should calculate via fiat as the plan is executed. As an LD judge, I think the round is about pursuing philosophical reasons to affirm or negate the resolution, and impacting through the lens of the criterial structure. Any successful movement away from the default paradigm typically entails explaining why I, the judge, should interpret your speech time differently. Most people succeed in shifting my defaults, and would consider me a “tabula rasa” judge. Nearly all of my LD rounds look like solo Policy these days. I’m expressive while judging, and you should take advantage of that, and look for cues. It is my belief that students are owed an explanation of the decision and that the judge is accountable to their evaluation of the round.

Clash happens through the lens of the ballot. The nature of how the ballot is to be considered is the framework flow, and that means that arguments like Kritiks might engage with T/Theory in some rounds and not others. This means I will vote for your take on burning down civil society in one round and vote you down on T in the next. I listen to about 20 rounds/week, so my strong preference is for good argumentation, not specific strategies. More at the top of the long version below.

Strategy Notes:

Negatives are currently going for too much in the 2NR, while dropping case. Affirmatives are currently spending too much time extending case while dropping world of the perm articulations.

Perms: I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there (more below).

Tricks: If you go for this, impact the tricks out, as you would a dropped card. Slow down for the key line(s) in rebuttal speeches. Eye contact makes this strategy sustainable. Yes, Tricks rounds have '19-'20 ballots from me. No, they should not be your first move.

Disclosure the Argument is great! Drop the debater on disclosure is unimpressive. Read it as an implication to round offense, or you're better off spending time on basically any other sheet.

Topical Version of the Aff (TVA): Gotta read them, gotta answer them. Most of the rounds I vote for T are from a dropped interp or dropped TVA

RVIs =/= Impact Turns: My patience for abusive theory underviews is fading. Quickly

Independent Voters: explain to me why the voter stands apart from the flow and comes first. Debaters are not consistently executing this successfully in front of me, so consider my threshold higher than average

No Risk: I do vote on no risk of the aff/plan doesn't solve. Terminal defense is still a thing

If you expect me to evaluate charts/graphics in your speech doc, give me time during the speech to read any graphics. It will otherwise only be a tie-breaker in evidence analysis

Uplayering: layers of debate often interact with each other; that they exist in separate worlds is not very compelling. Sequencing why I should analyze argument implications before others is the best way to win the layers debate.

Previous Season Notes:

While I recognize there's no obligation to share your analytics, the practice serves a good pedagogical benefit for those who process information in different ways. This is even more relevant for online debate. I will begin awarding +.3 speaker points for those speeches including all/nearly all analytics in the speech doc AND that are organized in a coherent manner.

2019-2020 Aff Speaks: 28.801 Neg Speaks: 28.809; Aff Ballots 114 Neg Ballots: 108

222 rounds judged for the '19-'20 season, mixed LD and Policy

Coached students to qualification for 2020 TOC in LD and Policy

--------------------

--------------------

LONG VERSION

(good luck, get snacks)

--------------------

--------------------

I recognize that this is no longer a viable read between rounds. Because I continue to receive positive feedback for its detail, it will be kept up, but I do not have any expectation that you will memorize this for my rounds. Bold text is likely worth its time, though.

Long Version (Procrastinating Other Work/Season Preffing):

Role of the Ballot:

Framework debaters: if you think the debate space should be predictable and fair, you should articulate what education/fairness/pick-your-voter means to the activity and why the ballot of this particular round matters.

K debaters: if you think rhetoric and its shaping matters more than the policy impacts of the 1AC, you should articulate your world of the alt/advocacy/pick-your-impact in a way that allows me to sign the ballot for you.

Performance debaters: if you think the debate space is for social movements/resistance/pick-your-story, you should explain why your performance relates to the ballot and is something I should vote for. Ideal performance cases explain topic links or provide reasons they actively choose not to be topical.

Everybody else: you get the idea. Clash happens through the lens of the ballot. The nature of how the ballot is to be considered is the framework flow, and that means that arguments like Kritiks might engage with T/Theory in some rounds and not others. This means I will vote for your take on burning down civil society in one round and vote you down on T in the next.

The world is unfair. Fairness is still probably a good thing. We get education from winning, and from losing. Some topics are poorly written and ground issues might not be the fault of your opponent. For debaters pursuing excellence, traditional voters aren’t the end of the conversation. Argument context can be everything. Tech speak, fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact.

“Two ships passing in the night” is something we hear in approximately 143% of RFDs, and it’s almost always the most efficient way to sad faces, frustration, and post rounding. RESOLVE this by finding points of clash, demonstrating that your claims engage with the claims of your opponent in a way that is beneficial for you. Clash shows that you are aware that your opponent has ground, and your following that with an explanation of why that ground couldn’t possibly earn my ballot is very persuasive. A round without clash is a round left to the judge, and you don’t want to leave any argument, big or small, up to the discretion of the judge.

The preventable argument issue that most often shows up on my ballot is how the permutation functions. I give the benefit of the doubt to the intuitive status of the permutation. For example, I think it’s very easy to imagine a world where two separate policy actions are taken. I think it’s very hard to imagine a world in which Civil Society is ended and the 1AC still solves its harms through implementation. The former gets preference for the permutation making sense. The latter gets preference for exclusivity making sense. I’m happy to vote against my intuition, but you need to lead me there.

I flow on paper, because as a wise teacher (Paul Johnson) once (/often) told me: “Paper doesn’t crash.” This means I will NOT:

Flow your overview verbatim

Flow your underview verbatim

Flow your tags verbatim

But I WILL:

Follow the speech doc for author name spelling

Have no issues jumping around sheets as long as you signpost as you go
Still always appreciate another run through the order (if you don’t have the order, or you change it up, that’s O.K. Again, just sign post clearly)

Write in multiple colors (for individual speakers and notes)

Typically respond to body language/speech patterns and give you cues to what should be happening more or what should be happening less (furrowed brow + no writing usually means bad news bears. No writing, in general, means bad news bears)

I will keep the speech doc open on my computer, because it seems like a good idea to live the round as closely to the competitors’ experience as possible. However, it is YOUR job as a debater to COMMUNICATE to me the most important parts of your speech. 9 times out of 10 this means:

SLOW DOWN to emphasize big picture ideas that you use to contextualize multiple parts of the round. Let me know that you know it’s important. That level of awareness is persuasive.

TELL A STORY of the debate round. Are you winning? (the answer is almost always “yes”) Why are you winning? What are your winning arguments? Why do they demolish your opponent’s arguments into a thousand pieces of rubble that couldn’t win a ballot if you were unable to deliver any additional arguments?

WEIGH IMPACTS. Time frame/magnitude/probability. These are all great words that win debate rounds. There are other great words that also win rounds.
PRIORITIZE (TRIAGE) arguments. You don’t need to win all the arguments to win the debate. If you go for all the arguments, you will often lose a debate you could have won.

New Affs Bad may be persuasive, but not to me. Breaking new affs is the divine right of the affirmative.

I’m still hearing this debated occasionally, but cross ex is binding. I flow it/take notes.

Flex Prep is alive and well in my rounds. You have an opportunity to ask further questions, but not a clear obligation to answer them. I also think it’s pretty fair that prep time can be used to just… prep.

If you ask me to call for evidence, you probably didn’t do a sufficient job presenting your cards during the round.

Rhetorical questions seem very clever as they’re conceived, but are rarely persuasive. Your opponent will not provide a damning answer, and your time would have been better spent working to make positive claims.

I tend to like policy arguments and performance more than philosophy-heavy kritiks because Ks often lose their grounding to the real world (and, it follows, the ballot). Policy arguments are claiming the real world is happening in the speeches of the round, and performance debate has had to justify its own existence for as long as it has existed, which makes it more practiced at role of the ballot. If you love your K and you think it’s the winning move, go for it! Just make sure to still find clash. Related: “reject” alts almost always feel like they’re missing something. Almost like a team without a quarterback, a musical without leads, a stage without performers.

Good links >>> more links

Good evidence >>>>> more evidence

Many definition interpretations are bad. Good definitions win [T] rounds.

Many framework card interpretations are bad. Every debater is better off reading the cards in the entirety at some point during their infinite prep, in order to better understand author intent.

My threshold for accepting politics disads as persuasive feels higher than the community average. I think it’s because probability is underrated in most politics disads.

Anything I believe is open to negotiation within the context of debate, but general truths have a much lower standard of proof (i.e. Debater 1 says “we are currently in Mexico.” Debater 2 counters “Pero estamos en Estados Unidos.” I consider the truth contest over at this point). The more specialized the knowledge, the higher the standard of proof.

Technical parts of the flow (T & Theory come to mind) can be really fast. I mentioned above that I’m writing by hand. You are always better off with -50% the number of arguments with +50% presentation and explanation to the remaining claims. Yes, I have your speech doc. No, I’m not doing your job for you. Communicate the arguments to me.

Debaters are made better by knowing how arguments evolve. There’s a reason a permutation is a “test of competition” (see: plan plus). Knowing the roots and growth of arguments will make you better at clash will make you better at debate will make you better at winning real, actual ballots.

My default is always to give an RFD, and to start that RFD with my decision. This will typically be followed by the winning argument(s). Ideally, the RFD should look suspiciously like the final rebuttal speech of the winning team.

I apologize for this paradigm becoming unreasonable in length.

--------------------

--------------------

Advice I give frequently enough to consume space on this infinitely long page that is now my paradigm:

Ships passing in the night/Clash wins rounds (see above)

Thanksgiving standard: if you can't explain why this argument is important to your Grandma during Thanksgiving dinner conversation, you probably need to keep reading the literature until you can contextualize to the real world. There's also a really good chance it won't win you the round.

At least try to live the advocacy you endorse. If you think coalition-building is the move, you shouldn’t be exclusionary without clear justification, and possibly not even then. The debate space is better for inclusion efforts.

It’s always to your advantage to use cross ex/prep to understand opposing arguments. Don’t realize after a rebuttal speech that your strategy was based on an incomplete understanding of your opponent(s) and their case.

It’s almost always worth your time to take a small amount of prep to sit back, breathe, and consider how you’re going to explain this round to your coach, debate-knowledgeable legal guardian, or friend-who-doesn’t-like-debate-but-supports-you-in-your-endeavors-because-they’re-a-good-friend. It’s an exercise that will tell you what’s important and help clear the clutter of speed, terminology, and tech.

This is also a good test for seeing if you can explain all the arguments using small words. I think the fanciest words I use in this paradigm are “verbatim” and “temporal proximity”. If you can’t explain your arguments in a simple, efficient manner, you need to keep reading.

It’s also almost always worth your time to take a moment, a sip of water, and a breath to collect yourself before a speech. Do this without excess and every judge you compete in front of will appreciate the generated composure and confidence in your ensuing speech.

Don’t start that speech with a million words a minute. Build to it. Double plus ungood habit if you forgot to check that everyone was ready for you to begin speaking.

I have never, not even once, in a decade+ of debate, heard a judge complain that author names were spoken too slowly.

Don’t take 5 minutes to flash a speech or to sort together a speech doc after you’re “done” prepping.

Your speech and prep time is yours to do with as you wish. Play music, talk loudly, play spades.

Opponent prep time is theirs to do with as they wish. That means you don’t get to play music intrusively (read: use headphones), talk intrusively, play spades intrusively, you get where this is going. This is one of the areas I think speaker points is very much at judge discretion.

If it’s not a speech and it’s not cross ex and neither team is running prep, you should not be prepping. Stealing prep is another area that I think leaves speaker points very much to judge discretion.

Don’t set sound alarms to the time you keep for your opponent’s speeches. Nobody ever, ever wants to hear the timer of the opponent go off before the speaker’s. I will keep time in 99% of debates, and if you’re wrong and cutting into their speech time, you’re losing speaker points.

I’m friendly.

I’m almost always down to give notes between rounds/after tournaments/via email on your performance in debate. Temporal proximity works in your favor (read: my memory has never been A1).

There are few things I love in this good life more than hearing a constructive speech that takes a new interpretation of an old idea and expands how I see the world. Writing your own arguments makes the time you invest in debate more worthwhile.

Spend some time teaching debate to others. Most things worth learning are worth teaching, and the act of teaching will give you an excellent perspective to arguments that have staying power in the community.

Lincoln-Douglas Debaters: A priori arguments can win rounds, but I’d rather see a debate where you win on substance than on a single line that your opponent dropped/misunderstood. If you’re going for a dropped analytic, impact it out in the 2R, as you would any other dropped card.

I feel like the rounds that end up being primarily the criterial debate typically indicate that the debaters could have done more to apply their arguments to the lens of their opponent’s criterion.

--------------------

--------------------

This space is for you. We don’t hold debate tournaments so that judges can sign ballots. You don’t spend hours/years preparing arguments and developing this skill because you just really want Tab Staffers to have something to do on the weekends. Mountains of money aren’t shifted so that we can enjoy the sweet, sweet pizza at the lunch hour. We’re here so that you can debate. Performance is about communicated intent, and debate is no exception. You can take anything out of that experience, but articulating your purpose walking into the round, even if only to yourself, will make you more persuasive.

Closing note: I typically think dialogue is the best way to educate, and that my role (at a bare minimum) is to educate the competitors following the round, through the lens of my decision and its reasoning. I will typically write a short Tabroom ballot and give as extensive a verbal RFD as scheduling permits/the students have asked all the questions they desire. The short version of this paradigm caused me physical pain, so that should indicate my willingness to engage in decision-making/pedagogical practices.

4 years high school LD/Extemp/PF

3 years college policy/parli/public

Coaching/teaching debate since 2009-ish

Writing Arguments by Allegory since 2013

I debated for Ardrey Kell for four years and did traditional LD and PF (like for two tournaments lol). I've judged only two other times this year so I'm a bit rusty and you might wanna chill w jargon and speed lol. Below is an overview of my preferences lol.

Framework:

-I like fw and unique ones will be rewarded as long as they actually do something for the case or give you a competitive edge otherwise I won't care.

-If neither side gives me a reason to prefer their fw ill probably default util.

-I'll probably vote for you if you give me numbered warrants to prefer your fw and they flow through the round even if I don't find them persuasive.

-yuh

Style/Speed:

-Don't care if u sit or stand.

-SIGN POST PLs

-Can handle speed but it isn't pleasant for me lol (I'm rusty) - if I miss something cause u were going fast I'm not gonna sweat it.

-If you wanna read something progressive thats fine I'm not saying ill understand it tho - I do like counter plans tho read those all you like.

Content:

-I like anything that has a warrant lol.

Extra Notes:

-I will probably drop you or severely dock speaker points if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or like just a terrible person in general.

-Being funny will probably raise ur speaker points.

-Have fun cause if u don't why are you even doing debate.

I competed in LD all four years of high school and I am now a freshman on the Duke debate team.

I am more acquainted with traditional debate but will keep up with progressive forms. If you spread, make sure to email your case to both me and your opponent. I will flow the round. If you do not respond to an argument that means it flows through, but does not inherently mean you have lost as I will judge the weight of each argument. That being said, I recommend that you respond to each of the arguments your opponent makes.

I will try to get the author name of each card on my flow but in the case that I miss one while you extend arguments you should give a brief explanation of the card you’re referring to rather than just saying “extend Martin” for example.

You can ask for evidence during prep time but not clarification, that should be accomplished during cross ex.

Value structures are an important mechanism to allow me to weigh the round, so be sure to keep up the value framework debate throughout the round. Feel free to use as much philosophy as you want, but you’ll still need cards to substantiate arguments. Do impact analysis as well.

I love specifically outlined voter issues but if you do not provide these I will create my own view of how the round should be weighed.

I will provide time signals if requested but I trust you to keep your own time, though I will have my timer going to keep you accountable. When you reach the time limit you may finish your sentence but should not continue the speech beyond that.

I prefer that you stand while presenting but will not stop you from sitting if you so choose.

Come into the debate prepared—pre-flow should be done ahead of time.

Aggression is fine but disrespect can cause you speaker points—you should know the difference.

Don’t be racist/sexist/xenophobic/etc and just have fun!

I’ll give you feedback at the end of the round and you can ask for advice or any questions you have.

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

I've judged LD for a long time. I want to make a moral decision, and I'm looking for the side that best walks me through why I should affirm or negate. I want to see both sides treat each other with respect, I don't wake up early and give up my weekends to hear snotty kids spew blippy arguments.

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of a Lincoln Douglas resolution, and there will be evidence on both sides. I vote on the debate as a whole, rather than using the flow as a scorecard in terms of the number of arguments advanced. I enjoy cases that have clear values and criteria that provide substantive reasoning as to the most important issues in the round. I do not enjoy cases with messy, generic values or criteria that don't really tell me anything and leave me with 2 sets of contentions bouncing off each other.

I'm not a fan of extremely meta or theory laden cases, and if you have a case that is really off-the-wall and a case that is more straight down the middle, I'd prefer the straight down the middle one. I'm not going to vote against you simply because I don't like your approach, but in general I don't find those sort of arguments compelling. The more convoluted your case, the more receptive I am to simple arguments from your opponent. Word salad debate jargon isn't a substitute for a compelling argument.

If you feel that you've made a good point in cross-ex, mention it in your rebuttal and tell me why it is important. Please remember that this is not a TV courtroom drama where you are the prosecutor trying to get your opponent to confess on the witness stand. I've never seen a round decided on a trick question during cross ex. The best uses of cross ex that I've seen involve making clear how your opponents' case works and in setting up the core conflicts that will be in the round.

I don't shake hands, but I'll give you a fist bump. There are too many illnesses out there.

I am a former LD coach and camp instructor who is now assisting with the Charlotte Latin School (NC) team. Though I will listen to kritiks, plans/counterplans, disads, etc., I prefer a good standards debate. If you choose to offer theoretical approaches, just be sure to explain and impact them clearly. NEG, avoid trying to win the round by spreading; instead, give substantive responses to the AFF case in addition to your case.

I do flow carefully and will make my decision largely based on coverage, argument quality, clash, and impacting. When you address standards, you should actually explain your argument rather than simply cross-applying arguments that don't necessarily fit your point. I can handle speed as long as you signpost and enunciate; if I cannot understand what you are saying, then your point won't be on my flow, and I won't vote on it. Please make CX count by asking substantive questions. Remain civil. You will not impress me by being arrogant, condescending or rude to your opponent. When tournaments allow, I am happy to offer a critique at the end though I generally do not disclose.

If you are a novice, please know that I am a friendly and accessible judge. I work with primarily with novice LDers and really enjoy that process. Feel free to ask me questions if you are confused during the round. I will write specific and constructive comments that you can later use in practice, and please don't hesitate to speak with me outside of the round about your performance. Above all, remember that your round should be a learning experience! It's NOT all about the "win." You should take something valuable from the round regardless of a win or loss.

I participated in LD for four years in highschool and judges a few times since then.

I am a lay judge who loves the "art" of debate. I enjoy engaging and watching in the use of oratory as a means for shaping a discussion. I value quality over quantity. I value persuasion over lingo. I value coherent, connected arguments over random facts and figures. I value engagement in a discussion as a means for shaping the argument as opposed to constantly repeating only one side of the argument.

This is my third year judging - I judge Congressional Debate and Lincoln-Douglas, and occasionally have the pleasure of being entertained with speech performances. I have been a practicing attorney for 26 years, both in the trial, transactional, and appellate worlds. While in public practice I spent significant time drafting model legislation for use by the multiple states and testifying on its behalf in the Maine Legislature. I love policy. I love the art of persuasion. I value the ability to argue both sides of any issue. I enjoy pointed and concise argument. Be professional, be kind, and, most importantly, have fun.

I am a fair open-minded judge who is able to discern a good argument, and have on many occasions awarded the debate win to a contention I do not personally agree with. A debate should be decided on who was more convincing regardless of the judges personal views. It is important I can understand you so that I can effectively judge your argument against your opponent, so speed is not as important as being articulate.

I believe that an argument should be well thought out, well structured, and cogent. I do prefer a fairly bullet-proof framework on which to hang the contentions and I am open to theoretical foundations once that framework has been articulated and defined, but ultimately a contention supported by facts and figures is more convincing as it is more quantifiable and less subjective.

I like to see debaters who challenge their opponents on their points with a crafty and well-timed rebuttals, in other words, able to think on their feet. I listen, take copious notes, and when I give my decision, I clearly state why I picked one side over the other.

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

I have been coaching all four categories of debate for First Colonial High School for the past decade. I have judged hundreds of rounds of both LD and PF. I also moonlight as a congress judge when needed/called upon. I don't subject myself to Policy unless it is an absolute necessity.

Etiquette is important. While I may not vote down a debater for rudeness or lack of etiquette, it will affect their speaker points. Since debate is about education, dialogue, discussion, etc., I personally believe that lacking manners is a major problem (since people do not want to engage with those who do not know how to treat others properly). You can be assertive, and even aggressive, without being a condescending jerk. Maintaining one's composure and displaying self-control (even in a heated round) is critical to me as a judge.

In LD, I do not want to be a part of the use of progressive tactics, as I strongly prefer more traditional LD debates. So absolutely no spreading, please no kritiks or counterplans (things will just get weird as there is just enough time in round to try and do it properly), and if you come into the round lacking a value and/or value criterion (because you plan to debate like an individual policy entry...) then you can pretty much count on me NOT voting you up. If you do not personally agree with this, please feel free to strike me (trust that I will not be offended).

In PF, there are couple notes I like to share. First, in the god awful periods of the round known as Cross-Fire, I do not flow anything that is said unless it is brought up in an actual speech afterwards. Just something to keep in mind. Also, see the brief paragraph on etiquette (cross-fire seems to make us forget about politeness in the heat of the moment). Second, (although this should go without saying) if you cannot produce a proper card or the article from which you base your evidence on during the round, then I wont flow it. I have this happen a few times in PF. Also, please have things organized to quickly pull up source info if it is requested. I wont make you use prep time to find cards unless we get way behind on time because it takes you all forever to find the requested info. I only bring this up because it has seemed to be an issue in at least half a dozen rounds this year. Lastly, (this is more of a personal preference) I do not find single contention cases to be very persuasive. While I have voted up teams with single contention cases on occasion, these types of cases tend to be gimmicks and lessen the overall quality of debate.

Most of all, I like debate and I love teaching, so I want you to know that I am still up for learning (and do not mind kids taking risks or chances in their tactics/strategy in rounds). I only give you the previous notes/comments to help you tweak your tactics and/or strategy if you feel it is necessary (and I like to give the LD debaters who only wish to do more progressive LD stuff a chance to strike me as a judge). I am fairly easy going, and I will always be happy to answer any clarifying questions before the rounds start.

I think I hit everything, if not... oh well (trust me, it will be okay).

Just because I like to end this with something you will likely think is weird, ambiguous (and possibly stoopid) --> In the end, everything and everyone that you have ever known, cared about, stressed over, etc. will be dust and will one day be forgotten by all others who will exist... so stop worrying and remember that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything. Live in the moment, and Godspeed to you all.

Oh yeah, remember that I will not be offended if you strike me as a judge. Just saying...

I am a first time parent judge.

It’s important to me that you know your facts and clearly communicate them.

I am a school coach, and I primarily work with competitors in speech events. This is my fifth year judging. When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. I value signposting and explicitly stating the number of the contention that you are addressing throughout the debate.

2. If you don't clearly connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

3. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity. I also need to be able to easily follow your logic, which is harder if a competitor spreads.

4. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

5. Be confident but courteous in the round.

I have been judging all forms of Speech and Debate for 5 years. I competed in Congress during my time as a competitor

I prefer to have a structured debate that has a progressive flow on both sides of the argument. Aggressive debate is fine but competitors should remain cordial to each other throughout the debate. All debate is point structured, so the win or loss is allocated to the competitor who both makes the better point and defends best against their opponent.

Organization is key for me as a judge. Your debate needs to follow a logical order with cohesiveness, if I can't understand the argument than I will have a much harder time judging it.

The most important aspects of a debate in terms of wins and losses is an evidence based approach that addresses all arguments in a manner of completeness. Leaving an opening within the debate is a sign of lack of preparation and will be judged accordingly. I expect all competitors to be aware of NSDA rules and regulations within their debating structure.

I was a debater in high school, so I keep a rigorous flow, know how to weigh arguments, and value framework. However, I'm a very traditional judge (ie Ks/Kritiks/etc. will sit poorly with me), have a functional but not an extensive background on philosophy, and generally shut down after a certain speaking speed. That said, my judging style breaks down like this: use whatever sorts of arguments you want, but make sure you clearly explain why your contention makes sense, what its impact is, and how it relates back to your (and ideally your opponent's) framework. If you're speaking too fast for me to write a point down, I won't be able to refer back to it on the flow later on, meaning you can't get offense from that point in my eyes.

anita.DukeDiv at gmail

My name is Anita Salazar. I competed in and have judged just about every speech and debate event. For Debate, although I only competed in PF and Congress, I have been judging LD and CX since 2009. I have seen an array of traditional and progressive arguments and I value validity and logic. I tend to be critical of dropped arguments, but I don't believe more substantiative points should be shadowed by a delineation. Regarding speed: I am fine with any speed if there are signposts and good taglines, but being virtual makes this a bit trickier. Being included in the chain helps this exponentially; but because of internet stability issues, I think it is wise to always confer with your opponent and judge(s) in the round first before spreading.

Sophomore at UNC who debated LD four years in North Carolina.

In HS, I only did traditional debate so while you can run progressive forms of debate and I'll listen, bear in mind I never debated it and thus am likely to not fully understand it. If you chose to do so, signpost VERY well and clearly articulate your case.

Remember, speak clearly, warrant your arguments, warrant your value structure, signpost as you go along, and GIVE VOTERS at the end of your last speech (2AR or 2NR).

Be respectful to everyone in the room, rudeness will dock you speaker points.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round.

Hi! I debated LD for Ardrey Kell, graduating in 2018, both traditional and circuit debate. I'm a recent grad from UNC-Chapel Hill with a background in statistics & business, and I currently work in technology consulting. I (generally) know what I'm doing, but I haven't been involved in debate for a while now. Please keep this in mind when choosing your style and strategy! My email is juliannesinclair@gmail.com if you need it to send cases/evidence.

• I'm not opposed to spreading, but I don't feel confident in my ability to understand extremely high levels of speed being out of debate for such a long time. However, you can speak at a very quick conversational pace in front of me, especially if you are using speed for effective argument coverage.

• In a traditional round, read whatever you'd like! I'll use the V/VC debate in my decision, but I honestly care more about the topic-specific arguments you make. Please don't make me hear a debate on morality vs. justice as a value - it's not going to sway my decision! Consider how important the framework debate is in relation to both cases; winning FW isn't always necessary to win the debate.
• Please weigh arguments throughout the round, not just in the 2AR!
• I'm all good with topical Ks, policy arguments, and any traditional arguments.
• I'm probably not the judge to read theory in front of. Or tricks. I simply don't have the background to evaluate these debates.
• I also don't really have the background to be evaluating a very dense phil debate. I do enjoy unique frameworks, but I'm gonna need some extra background if it's not something that would be taught in Philosophy 101.
• Humor executed well will raise your speaks. Snarkiness can be great, but do not be mean to your opponent, especially if they are less experienced than you.
• On a similar note - do not read progressive arguments to confuse a less experienced / traditional opponent. I'm totally fine evaluating progressive debate arguments, but the round should be educational and fair for everyone involved.
• If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round! :)

Justin.T.Smith@du.edu

704-408-3466

About me

I graduated from Charlotte Latin School in 2019 and now attend the University of Denver. I debated LD for three years both locally and nationally. I'm very flexible and will listen to just about everything. Keep in mind I'm pretty flow so don't drop anything you care about. Feel free to text me any questions you have or ask me in round.

My preferences

-I'm cool with any speed, just be clear

-Extend your arguments across the flow and give me some impacts please

-Love CP's and DA's if you wanna throw some in there

-I'm cool with K's just make your advocacy clear for me

-All theory is fine just do it properly if you are going to go for it

-Tricks/pics/etc. all cool if you have the warrants for them

-Try to make debate a fair space and shape rounds so that they are fun for everyone:) (don't read a non-top K against someone who doesn't know what a CP is;)

-And finally make sure you tell me how I'm supposed to weigh the round

I am a lay judge and have been judging for two years. My personal interests are politics and current events. If debaters speak so quickly that I cannot understand their arguments, that will affect the weight I give to them.

I've judged a few times over the past 4 years and did LD debate all 4 years of high school. I can keep up with pretty much any style, so I don't have preferences on what kind of debate you have. Just try to have a good time.

I am a traditional judge who has been part of the debate community for over a decade now. I look towards both the contention level arguments as well as the value framework. I am willing to consider progressive styles but I don't prefer it. As long as the speaker is clear I can handle speed, but I believe it is a test of skill to communicate more content with fewer words.

Speak well and clearly. Extended stuff, frame the round. Voters are great

I competed in LD all four years in high school on the NC circuit and traveled to national tournaments such as Harvard and Emory. I qualified and competed at the NCFL national tournament both my junior and senior year.

I am a recent graduate from Duke University and have remained active in the debate community by judging at local tournaments over the past 4 years.

I am not picky about what you run as long as it is clear and logical. Don't make assumptions that I know something because if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. No theory unless there is a clear abuse in the round (someone ran theory against me for using paper so not a fan) and honestly you could probably just explain the abuse and save all of us some time. I also judge how you treat your opponents. It may not ultimately affect my decision, but it definitely will impact your speaker points.

Any specific questions feel free to ask me in round.

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included.

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I come into LD from that background, and I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I can grasp and understand as a path to the ballot. I don't feel bad saying "I didn't understand this, so I didn't vote on it."

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. Debaters saying "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" or, even worse, "I don't want your team to have my arguments" are huge pet peeves of mine. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not sufficient nor time conscious. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Original Paradigm:

I am a parent judge who has judged only traditional debate. While I can understand faster than a conversational pace, please do not spread. I will not vote for something I can't understand. Also, I much prefer if you debate topically, and will not vote on non topical affs. I do not like theory and am not likely to vote on it, and I will not vote on tricks or skepticism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 2019:

(Written by Joey Tarnowski)

So as of now, there's probably a little more argument flexibility to be had. Skep, most theory args (the more friv, the worse) and basically all kritiks are probably a no. Also you should prob keep spreading to a minimum (read: DON'T DO IT) but kinda fast is prob alright. Most non-cheaty cp's are probably okay, but pics and advantage CPs will just need a little explanation. Disads are fine, but the strat here should prob be more of a "turns case" strat than an extinction scenario. The more links in the link chain, the less likely it is you'll win on it. T on plans is probably fine, but you should prob default to a reasonability standard cause the stuff about frivolous theory applies here too. TLDR; most util strats are prob your best bet, but probability>magnitude should be what frames whatever you're running.

Hi! I used to be in your shoes, a little high school debater just trying to get by while people older than me scrutinized my every move and wrote down all of their critiques for me, my opponent, and the whole world to see. But as a wise man named Michael Scott once said, "Well, well, well how the turntables...." Now, I'm the judge. Prepare to be scrutinized. I'm just kidding. Don't worry. I'm the judge, but I'm not gonna judge you or anything, wait that's not true, I kinda have to... oh well, sorry.

Quick Things:

Speed/Style: I'm fine with whatever you're comfortable with. Just don't be abusive. I can flow whatever speed that's coherent (aka not spreading) as long as you remember to SIGNPOST!

Framework: Have one.

Content: Anything with a warrant. Also, please link to the framework.

Other things you might want to know about me:

1. I did LD for four years.

I loved speech and debate in high school and I'm happy to return to judge.

2. For LDers: My favorite value structure to run was justice with any Rawlsian criterion.

I love Rawls. If you run Rawls, I'll probably get noticeably excited in round.

Also, gotta say, not a fan of util. Because Rawls. But also, it's so boring. There are so many other possibilties for value structures to make the round way more interesting and you're just gonna run util? I mean you might as well be doing PF.

Don't worry, I will still vote under a util framework if I have to.

3. For PFers: I didn't do PF, sorry.

Yeah so I'll probably be looking like one of those lay judges checking the times for the speeches on the ballot every five seconds. How many speeches are there again? 47? Really? Okay.

4. I will not vote for abusive arguments.

(A) Burdens.

The affirmative's burden is to uphold the resolution as a general principle, not just in one isolated example, so don't run abusive plans, observations, arguments, etc. I will not vote for them. Note: I'm fine with plans if they uphold the resolution as a general principle, but if they narrow the scope of the resolution too far (i.e. if they're abusive) then they're not okay, and I will not vote for them. Please please please don't run abusive plans, observations, or arguments, I really don't want to hear them. Also, I will not vote for them.

The negative's burden is to disprove the affirmative. Simple as that. If you disprove everything the affirmative says, I will vote for you. There's no need for counterplans, unless you want to use the argument that the negative has some mutually exclusive AND competitive alternative to the resolution to undermine the affirmative's position. That's fine. Whatever. Just don't be abusive.

Pro and con burdens in PF? *shrug* I dunno. Go nuts.

(B) Spreading

Spreading is abusive (to my brain). So please don't do it. Also, the point of speech and debate is to persuade your audience with clear, concise, and coherent language, not to defecate in all of our ears. So don't spread. Note: talking fast if fine. I talk fast. I can listen fast. I can flow fast. Just make sure you signpost so I know where to flow. Spreading is completely different from just talking fast; it's flashing me your case and expecting me to do all the hard work reading it while you stand there vomiting out noises that don't sound anything remotely like words and every thirty seconds gasping for air as if you were just drowning when really you on the dry land acting a fool. Don't spread.

5. I think speech and debate is supposed to be fun.

If you're not having fun then why the heck are you even doing it? So please, have fun in round. Whatever that means to you. To me it means make jokes. Humor is a very persuasive tool so use it! Also, I'll like you more if you're funny.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. I don't bite. Except when my orthodontist tells me to.

I'm currently a freshman at Duke, but I did LD for 4 years at Ardrey Kell. I focused more on traditional LD due to the nature of the LD circuit in NC. I don't have too much exposure to more progressive styles of argumentation, but I should be good with basic LARP type stuff if you choose to go that route. However, I do prefer, at more traditional/lay tournaments, that you stick to the norms of the circuit unless both you and your opponent are fine with a little more speed/complexity. Basically, don't make it difficult for your opponent to participate in the round. Also, please be courteous and respectful to your opponent and generally don't make them feel like shit. Don't be racist/sexist/bigoted or you will be dropped. In general, please weigh, run cool cases, and don't lie.

Specifics:

1) I enjoy seeing unconventional approaches to the topic, but make sure you explain it clearly enough that I know what I'm voting for.

2) I've found that inexperienced debaters don't spend enough time on link-level debate, so please try and do that. BUT, experienced debaters often forget about impact level debate. Your arguments should be very clearly impacted out and weighed, and I think this sometimes doesn't happen because of how caught up debaters get in justifying/proving arguments. At the very least, give me voters that detail how exactly the resolution changes (positively or negatively) society.

3) V/VC-Not entirely sure how I feel about this. Basically, if you think winning your value or value criterion actually changes the way I evaluate arguments and gives you an edge in the round, please debate it. I enjoy well-done phil debate a LOT and I'd love for it to be more prevalent on the NC Circuit. But, make sure your phil debate actually has implications for the round. I'm not a big fan of random Morality vs. Justice debates where neither side clearly articulates why it actually matters whether the value is Morality or Justice.

4) Evidence-so, while I did debate I was a lot more pro-cards and empirics than most, but I've kind of moved away from that mindset. Evidence still matters to me though. Please run good, high quality evidence in limited amounts with good analytics to go with it. Try and understand exactly what the card is saying and don't misrepresent evidence. In terms of responding to evidence, I REALLY would appreciate more people on the circuit calling for cards and looking through methodological flaws and other inconsistencies in the evidence. A big power move is pulling up the PDF and just listing off all the ways that your opponent misrepresents the evidence. If you give me a competing piece of evidence, please make it CLEAR why exactly I should prefer your card instead of your opponent's. Anecdotes are good to exemplify a problem and add context, but don't rely exclusively on them.

5) Flowing-I can flow at basically the higher end of NC debate. Don't spread, but also don't feel the need to go super slow. I flow on my laptop so if I'm on my laptop during the round, that's why. I generally catch most of what you're saying, but you can help out by going slower on key points and emphasizing them throughout the round.

6) Speaker Points-I'll probably give out speaks based on strategy. If you run cool arguments, approach the topic in a nontraditional way, and execute the strategy well, expect higher points. I enjoy humor and sass, but make sure you respect your opponent while you're at it.

Standardized testing topic specifics: This seems like it'd turn into a card war REALLY fast, so keep in mind what I said about making clear why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's. I don't know much about the topic, so explain acronyms, abbreviations, etc. Also, it's my first time judging so please make it easy on me by doing a ton of weighing and giving me clear voters' issues.

That's more or less my thoughts on debate. If you have any specific questions about debate or even college or something, feel free to ask before the round or email me. My email address is vineel.vanam@gmail

Former coach, more often in tab rooms than at the back of the room with a ballot, electronic or otherwise. As a judge, I’m probably considered a very traditional flow judge. I’m likely not as well-read on the resolution as you are, haven’t taught LD in any camp or class, and don’t judge LD especially often. To me, a good LD round involves a debate between two individuals using logic, reason, and clarity around the resolution at hand; if I find myself open to critical approaches to the resolution I’ll update my paradigm accordingly.

No exhaustive list of my thoughts on different arguments, though these 3 are pretty representative of my general thoughts on LD:

1. Disclosure theory is a non-starter. Use it if you want, but I will not vote on the basis of whose case is or isn’t on the wiki so in front of me it’s a waste of time.

2. I’m not interested in time skew. I trust that you were aware of the structure of an LD round before walking into the tournament.

3. Debate is an educational activity. The role of the ballot is to communicate to you, your opponent, and your coach(es) observations about how effective your argumentation was in a given round and offer suggestions for improvement. The ballot may be an opportunity for me to learn and grow as well, but my ballot will not affect grand societal change no matter how hard we try.

I ultimately want to vote for something at the end of the round. To accomplish this, take the following into account:

1. Like I said, I don’t judge often which means I likely won’t be able to keep up at the rate many circuit debaters prefer. About half as fast as your maximum is probably acceptable for me to flow and think (but no faster).

2. I don’t want cases flashed to me or share a Google Doc during the round. If I wanted to read argumentation I would pursue competitive essay-grading.

3. Your ideas and those of your opponent should engage with one another. Trying to cram as many responses against each point made by your opponent doesn’t do this and won’t help you win my ballot or earn very high speaker points. Neither will ignoring your opponent’s case and insisting that yours is the only thing that matters in the round.

4. Effective crystallization is critical. For me to vote for you I need to know specifically what arguments you won, why, and how.

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

Hello! I'm Celine (she/her/hers). I graduated from Colleyville Heritage in Texas last year and am currently a freshman at Duke. I debated in LD for 4 years, on both the local and national circuit. I qualified for NSDA nationals, UIL, and TFA state, so I'm comfortable with both traditional and circuit debate.

email: celine.x.wei@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

Generally, I'm good with any argument as long as it is clearly connected to some sort of evaluative framework and it isn't offensive. Just make sure to extend warrants through your speeches, and tell me what I'm voting on in your last speech, and why it's better than your opponents arguments (ie weigh). I decide by first looking at framework/weighing mechanisms, and then determine who met it better. If there's no offense in the round, my default is presuming neg (though obviously can be convinced otherwise). I'm fairly good with speed, but obviously slow down on taglines and theory.

Analytical Phil: I appreciate a good phil debate. Just make sure to explain how your offense links back to the framework. If you're not consequentialist, make sure your offense is not consequentialist either. If it's not a common framework, make sure to explain it well.

Policy/LARP: I ran a fair bit of policy args in high school. You should be reading a framework (ie util, structural violence, etc.), it doesn't have to be a strict value/value criterion, but it should be specific. I appreciate good case debate. Make sure you're explaining warrants and doing good impact and link weighing.

Ks: I loved running Ks in high school, and am pretty familiar with most common critical literature (ranging from identity to post-structuralist). I default to affs having to be topical, but can be convinced otherwise. I do think that pre-fiat debates can occur, but I see that as more of a methods debate, so you have to know how to defend your method/solvency in terms of how your aff/method engages with the world. Also, neg K's should be able to explain what their alt looks like, and be specific and warranted in their links. If you're reading something more obscure, make sure to explain it well.

Tricks: I'm fine if you want to read a theory underview, or have tricky elements to your strategy. If your strategy is to read a nailbomb aff, or truth-testing with a bunch of not very well-warranted NCs, I'm probably not the judge for you, and will probably be more permissible to your opponents responses.

Theory: I view theory in an offense-defense paradigm (voters are framework and your standards should link to them). I default competing interps, drop the arg, and no RVIs if you don't tell me otherwise. I think people should disclose, but I'm also sympathetic to small school debaters who aren't aware of disclosure norms (disclosure shells should include screenshots). If you run frivolous theory (ie water bottle theory), I'll have a lower threshold for reasonability args. I'm honestly a big fan of a good theory debate, so please don't make it messy (ie if you don't have a cohesive story, no one weighs, no clear extensions, no explanation of voters).

Speaks: If you have a super effective overview, efficient weighing, great line by line, etc. I will give you higher speaks for making the round better! Don't be unnecessarily rude or condescending (note: this doesn't mean passionate or aggressive) toward a younger or newer debater. I'll say slow or clear a few times if I'm having trouble flowing, but after that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I start at 28 and go higher or lower.

If there's anything in here or anything else you have questions on, feel free to ask before round, although try to keep your questions specific. Also, if you have any questions after round, feel free to find or contact me as well. Looking forward to good rounds!

I am new to LD, but look forward to judging. I am a parent of four, and an avid reader with an interest in a variety of perspectives. I am also a fan of politics, (old school) and have experience in the journalism profession, (also old school). As an LD judge, I will value strength and consistency of a well researched argument. I’m sure I will be impressed by those who best demonstrate clarity of position, and perception in discerning and refuting opponents’ assertions.

Heather Weisz

I am a parent judge and have been judging for 2 years. I judge based on what I can understand, so I prefer a slower debate... a clear and understandable speech is essential to win. I like the structural debate with framework, and strong evidence to address arguments. I like strategic cross examination and voting issues. Your behavior and language have to be appropriate...being confident and courteous is important.

I am a parent judge and have judged LD in a couple of tournaments the past two years. I have no experience with any progressive debate and likely won’t understand it. In evaluating rounds, I prefer arguments that are coherent and well-articulated.

I have never worked as a debate judge.

Eloquence is magic.

Debating is a very important activity and highly pertinent in modern times where people attention spans can only handle (with grace) tweets, sound bites and short messages.

Debating promotes the healthy learning environment. It teaches many aspects of effectively communicating ideas with civility and convincing people to one’s ideas. It allows participants to learn about different subjects in an extracurricular activity or in a quasi-academic setting. Debaters can present different angles on the same ideas which may be unknown to the audience. Debating is the sunlight and water to the healthy society. Without debating democracy will wither into autocracy.

After completing MS in Computer Science and Engineering, I worked in Computer industry for 15 years. Currently doing research to find the root cause of the modern-day health crisis.