DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. As far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(2) Make me laugh;

(3) Make me cry;

(4) Make me care;

(5) Help me understand what you mean;

(6) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(7) Help me understand why any competing viewpoint is wrong [or "misinformed"]; and,

(8) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't be intimidated by all of this this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating in a way that focuses on building human connections [rather than squabbling over obscure, marginally-relevant minutia].

Add me to the E-mail Chain. clacktech4@me.com

This is my first experience judging. I look forward to the experience, and learning from you all.

Updated for NCFL.

Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.

I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:

1. Rule/Evidence Violations.

If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.

As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.

2. Being Offensive or Rude.

I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.

3. Pre-Fiat Impacts

Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.

4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts

Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.

Misc. Things:

- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.

- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.

- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.

- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).

- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)

PF:

- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.

- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.

- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.

- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.

- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.

LD:

- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.

- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.

Policy:

- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.

- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.

- Tag team cross is fine.

- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).

- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.

Congress:

- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.

- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.

Be civil. Debate beyond your case. As you debate, interact with and include all of the information brought up in the round. Speak clearly, and organize your arguments in a clear and concise manner.

Under personal review please ask before round for paradigm.

Congress Paradigm:

Debate Paradigm:

Speech Paradigm:

pgeiser@lclark.edu

feel free to email me any questions or concerns you may have!

I recently graduated from Lewis and Clark College and debated for them for four years as well. I competed in LD all four years in high school, qualified for nationals 3x, was a state champion, & did all that cool debate stuff.

Just go for your best strategy. I will listen to any argument. Ultimately, it's your debate and your style is what you should bring to the table. I will vote for anything as long as you make it MATTER. This means impact weighing, framing, and even extending!!!

General:

I vote on flow.

I'm tab, do whatever you want.

Speed is cool BUT if you are reading heavy lit, don't expect me to be able to follow everything-- so in that case you may wanna slow down. Ultimately, I cannot vote for something I don't understand. Also, don't spread tag-lines and plan-texts.

I won't do extra work for you. What you say, is what's on the flow.

Please make the round accessible for everyone... it's not fun debating yourself :(

Affirming:

I am okay with non-topical affs, topical affs, pseudo topical affs, basically whatever. I like being exposed to different forms of debate. however, have something material I can vote for...

You don't need to defend USFG or even the topic, but make sure to be ready for the FW deb8.

Negating:

I like all debate-- cp, disad, t/theory, k...

I will vote on condo bad ☺️

T/Theory:

I default to competing interps.

probs won't vote on frivolous theory-- yes, disclosure theory is frivolous.

my threshold for topicality is pretty high and you need to really go hard on voters. like why am I, as the judge, supposed to even care about topicality? with that said, i enjoy a technical t/theory debate!!!

when going against the K aff, FW is probably strategic but make sure to meet the K at its own level, too. remember that K affs are ready for the FW debate, so that flow isn't always the best to go for. but alas, if you are winning the FW debate, it's probably best you go for it.

I'm one to believe theory in any speech is OK-- as abuse can occur in any speech.

I am a first diamond coach from western Colorado. I have some knowledge judging debate.

In a debate, I look for clarity and link. If your content has zero link to you are trying to solve, then I cannot consider it. I expect information and logic that help decide my flow.

Do not attack your opponents but you can attack the information that they provide.

Background: I did debate for eight years, competed at the University of Utah in BP/Parli/Extemp/CA/Prose. Dabbled in IPDA when I had to. Graduated 2022. I've seen some stuff. Any debate style okay, I don't really care what you read, as long as it's not wildly problematic. I judge off the flow primarily and tend to give decent speaks. Tabula Rasa as much as humanly possible. I like framework in rounds to have some sort of weighing mechanism, so if you want to win gimme a framework. If you don't like the way your opponent set up a round, gimme a counter-framework and tell me why I should prefer it (IE aff is abusive, neg doesn't have one, etc.)

Tell me the speech times; I don't remember that from high school debate lol

SIGNPOST. PLEASE. I won't do work for you. Make your args and responses clear. It takes practice so if you're new, no worries at all! :) Signposting just means saying who's argument and which argument you are responding to: "In my opponent's first point they discuss x; I have this refutation to that" and it takes practice. So please, in the very least, practice!

My philosophy is basically do whatever as long as you make it make sense; if you have more specific questions you can ask in round. Otherwise, we're here to debate. Let's do the debate thing. Just do your best. :) I'm not here to judge you- well...

LD

V/VC are good things to have. Claims, warrants, links. Your K should have links; if it doesn't and you choose not to explain how it relates to the topic/your opponents case, you probably won't win. If your K does link, then you probably WILL win. Things to consider. Impact Analysis and Framework are both good to include; how am I gonna weigh the round? You tell me.

PF

Framework is cool. Impact Calc is very important in PF because why should I care about what you're saying? Tell me. I play video games more than much else these days; I don't know what the akywxvnslsplqm is. SO TELL ME. Or I won't care and thus won't weigh it. Your acronyms are useless if you assume everyone knows every acronym ever. Cards good. PF style changes every year, so run what you want here; have fun with it. That's really what debate is all about :)

Policy

You do you; link chain/speak clearly if you're going Sonic fast: gracemo314@gmail.com I can roll with just about anything here. Again, just make sure you have links/warrants/etc.

Congress

Ask questions, give speeches, get good ranks.

I have been doing debate for a long time. I can handle most things that are thrown out in a round. I don't like incredible speed, but I can handle it. I like it when the argument is clear, concise and performed well. I do not like personal attacks in a round. Keep things civil! If things get too out of hand I will be very motivated to give the round to the most civilized team. Aside from these few things, I am not extremely worried about the content of the round. Whoever's argument is better will win!

I was a debater for four years specializing in L.D. and ora

tory. I definitely prefer traditional L.D., but I respect the progressive format as well. I can keep up with Spreading so long as it's clear and you slow down on your taglines. If you lack clarity while Spreading I will not be able to thoroughly process and flow your arguments. I am definitely a believer that the quality of your arguments is much more important than the quantity thereof.

It is crucial that you emphasize the impacts of your arguments. Tell me why your argument is important as well as what that argument is and how it relates to your value. Also, be sure to clash! Show me where and why your opponent's arguments fail AND why I should care more about yours. Make sure to properly source your cards and that your cards logically flow with your contentions.

As far as presentation, clarity, confidence, and civility are key. I will judge first and foremost on your arguments, but it is crucial that you are able to present those arguments in a persuasive manner. Be civil with your opponent. Debate is about convincing and honest communication and tearing apart arguments, it is not about tearing apart another person to lift up your own ideas.

I'm excited to see what you can do and what you have to say. Have fun and give me something to think about! :)

I’m looking for follow through in your speeches. Don’t drop important arguments. Organize your speeches. I’d rather vote on speech and argumentation than framework, but if there’s clear abuse I will vote on framework. Don’t be afraid to push the boundaries with you arguments, but make it relevant. Don’t argue K unless you really understand it because it makes it messy for everyone.

I have 8 years of competitive debate experience in pf, parli, impromptu, and extemp

Background

I competed for American Leadership Academy in PF for four years, and I am now in my sophomore year of college at UVU.

General

Warrant your evidence well, especially if you are a fast speaker. I can't vote on things I can't hear/understand.

I know this is unorthodox in PF, but I enjoy a good framework debate.

Unless you have a good reason please stand while you are speaking, if you decide to speak while sitting, I will dock speaker points.

I expect all the participants in the round to know how to argue without quarreling, how to quarrel without suspecting, how to suspect without slandering etc.

If you are going to pre flow, make sure you do it before. I won't delay the round for you.

Time yourselves.

I am okay with off time roadmaps as long as they are brief.

Case/Rebuttal

I appreciate creative cases and frameworks if they are well-executed. I won't vote on it, but it could get you some extra speaker points.

Creative Framework=anything other than Cost Ben

You can speak as quickly as you need, just make sure your taglines are clear so I can get them in my flow.

Signpost! Signpost! Signpost! Make sure you always clearly describe where you are in the flow.

Summary/Final Focus

Copied from the rules of PF.

Summary Speeches: "New evidence, but no new arguments may be presented, except responses (refutation)."

Final Focus: "no new arguments may be presented; however, new evidence may be introduced to support an argument made earlier in the debate."

The Final Focus speech should write my ballot for me. Don't spend more than 30 seconds talking about the flow, instead stick to broad arguments that you feel define the round.

Crossfire

I sporadically pay attention during crossfire, and I don't flow it. So, if you feel something important was said make sure to bring it up in a speech

Be respectful.

Ask real questions and refrain from making statements.

Speaker points

I generally give twenty-seven's to the losing team and twenty-eights to the winners. If you want to get more, do the following things.

Creative Strategy.

Warrants and Sign Posting.

Referencing Vines/Memes (Levity is nice in a debate round.)

Speaking with clarity.

A Guide to my facial expressions

Face in my notebook/computer= I understand what you are saying, and I am recording it.

Looking up, pen in hand=you are saying something interesting and I want to fully understand it.

Pen down, arms folded=you are saying something confusing or wrong.

I was in debate for all of high school. I did policy for 1 year and LD for the rest. I loved them both but LD is my favorite. Unfortunately this combo has left me with an odd judging paradigm.

LD SPECIFIC:

Progressive cases- Because of my background in policy I can enjoy a progressive case WHEN IT IS DONE WELL! In LD you do not have as much time to establish the needed ground for a lot of K’s and other obscure arguments. Obviously you have to take the risk and be sure you can have the needed ground.

Solvency- No matter how traditional you are you still have to have solvency within your case. If the AFF provides a plantext and the argument against that is “this is LD and we don’t have to provide a plan”, the neg will likely lose. The NEG job is to say no to the AFF(as long as the plan is within reason).

Voters- Voters are one of the most important parts of your rebuttal. If you do not have voters I will assume that you do not care how the round ends and that everything should be weighed the exact same. This will not work out in your favor. Take at least a minute to explain why you should win. It shows an investment in the round and an actual desire to win.

Framework- Value and Value Criterion are what set LD debate apart. In a sense it is your opportunity to showcase knowledge and creativity. It is pretty easy to tell when someone put a lot of thought into their value and value criterion. If you value morality I will assume you are a boring debater and you will most likely not win the framework argument. LD is about morality, the whole goal is to prove morality. It is too vague and is already implied in the form of debate. I weigh heavily on this portion of the debate. Direct clash is good but if you and your opponent have the same framework you can still argue who better fits the framework. Do not just assume this doesn't matter because you have the same framing. Tell me how the debate should be interpreted, don't let me do that on my own.

Flowing- If you don’t flow I’m going to have a very hard time taking you seriously. Less than 10% of the population has a photographic memory so it’s not likely that that is you. Even if it is, you should still flow.

Speed- If you are spreading, you must also be clear! If you are unclear I will not be able to flow what you are saying and it will not help you in round. Slow down for taglines and anything of extreme importance.

GENERAL:

I think debate should be fun. I’m a fairly laid back judge who will vote on most anything as long as it is logical.

You should always be civil to your opponent- rip their case apart not them. Personal attacks are an absolute no. If a personal attack is made speaks will be dropped. I’m all for a super competitive clash filled debate as long as you also have good sportsmanship.

Cross counts for your speaks, not towards the win or loss.