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

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

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

Timing

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

Speed

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

Flex Prep

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

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

Evidence Ethics

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

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

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging style

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

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

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

Topicality

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

Theory

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

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

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

Burden Interpretations

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

I have been coaching and judging Public Forum debate for three years now. My preferences are as follows:

Timing:

I'm a stickler for time. I do not allow off-time road maps. Everything you say needs to be in your time. You need to ensure that you are timing yourself, your team mates, and your opponents. If any member goes beyond time (except for closing statements -- "and for this reason, you must ballot aff" and etc.) I consider this a failing in timing for all members, and can affect speaker points. For prep time, tell me what you've used after you've used it. Do not tell me what you intend to use. For a cross fire, if you ask a question at the end of the time, you will not receive an answer.

Argumentation:

I do flow each contention for each round. Each contention should be extended through the summary speech. Failure to extend an argument will be considered conceded to your opponent. If your opponent notices your failure to extend a contention, and also mentions it, that can sink your debate for me. The exception to this is your final focus. Your final focus needs to be exactly as it is titled -- focused. You need to consider where your single strongest contention is and explain why you win on that basis. In the process, be sure to bring back your evidence and reasoning to support your impacts for that contention. Essentially, give me your voters only.

Evidence:

I'm not a stickler for evidence, as some judges are. When prompted for evidence or a source, you should be able to provide it quickly. I hate when a debate is mired with searching through cards to find particular quotations or links. If you cannot quickly find a source, I will assume it does not exist. You should not ask for evidence unless: 1. You know your opponent is making unsubstantiated claims, 2. Your opponent has evidence directly contrasting your own evidence and claim, or 3. You believe your opponent is misrepresenting or falsifying evidence. In any of these cases, as you ask for the evidence, be clear to provide your reasoning. If you believe the evidence is false or misrepresented, I will look at it as well. Otherwise, I never ask for evidence.

Crossfires:

I don't generally note or flow crossfires unless an important development or concession is made. Respect during a crossfire is paramount. I understand and support passionate exchanges, but not at the expense of civility and respect for your opponents.

Speaking:

I can understand and follow spreading, but I generally discourage it. I think your ability to vary your tone, adding vocal emphasis to your important points, and to sound interested and passionate in your topic, are far more important than loading your speech with the most evidence possible. I award points on this basis. I have no preferences for sitting or standing at any point in a debate, and I don't care at whom you look during speeches or crossfires.

Determining Winners:

As stated, I judge each contention independently. I will award a "point" to the side who best argues each contention for each case. At the end of the round, the win will go to the side with the most points (that is, the better arguments for the greatest number of individual contentions). I don't generally weigh frameworks unless both teams provide and debate frameworks, or there is a tie in points and the framework affects the weight/scope of the arguments.

I debated national circuit LD at Starr's Mill High School '12 (GA) and did Policy at Vanderbilt University '16 (TN).

I think I am a standard national circuit LD judge. If you only have experience with local debate, this means that I'm fine with (and proactively prefer) spreading and non-traditional arguments. However, if doing so, I recommend using a email chain, for which my email is brenthu1717@gmail.com.

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

LD Paradigm

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

My general preference for debate argument types is Framework >= Plan-Focused/Util > Theory >> Kritiks.

Framework

I like philosophy debate a lot, especially analytical ethical philosophy. If you frequently read cards from Singer, Korsgaard, Mackie, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in general, I would probably really enjoy judging you.

- I enjoy cases that are balanced between framework and contention-level offense, e.g., the AC spending half its time justifying an ethical system (utilitarianism, Kant, Hobbes, virtue ethics, divine command, moral skepticism, etc.) and then the rest on offense under that framework.

- I'm extremely opposed to theoretically-justified frameworks/affirmative framework choice. I think these things kill philosophy education, which is the most useful part of debate. If you can't prove that util is objectively true, what's even the point of pretending it's true if we have no reason to believe it?

- I'm not a fan of vague standards like "structural violence" where practically anything commonly considered bad can be considered an impact. Winter and Leighton are the bane of my existence.

- Your impacts need to actually link to an ethical philosophy in the round. Explain to me why I should care about people dying, why human rights exist, and why racism is bad in the context of the round.

Plan-focused/Util

I can enjoy a Plan-focused or whole-resolution util debate just as much, however, and I've done Policy in the past.

- Weighing is wonderful, and probably the point where you will best be able to pick up high speaks.

- Things like author-specific indicts or methodological critiques of particular studies are fantastic. Tell me things like, "This study only has a sample size of n=24" or "The study's authors indicated the following problems with their own study."

- Impact turns are great. I can’t promise it’s always the best idea, but I’ll probably love it if the 1AR is four minutes of “global warming good” or "economic collapse prevents nuclear war."

- Counterplans are a very important neg tool, but I think some of the more abusive ones, like 50 States CP or Consult CP are difficult to defend in terms of making debate a good activity.

- In LD, I'd prefer you just read one unconditional CP.

Theory

- If the AC is super spiky, please number the spikes. This will make it a lot easier for me to flow. If you spout out single-sentence arguments for a full minute, I’ll be more inclined to vote on them if I can clearly tell where one ends and another begins.

- I like clearly articulated theory shells in normal Interpretation-Violations-Standards-Voters format. It makes it much easier to flow compared to paragraph theory.

- I would prefer if you shared pre-written shells in the email chain, even if they're only analytical.

- I default to competing interpretations but am receptive to reasonability if mentioned.

- I like RVIs and will often vote on them, especially for the aff. If you're the aff and you're not sure if you should go for 4 minutes of the RVI in the 1AR, my advice is probably yes.

Kritiks

- Post-fiat Kritiks are fine. I'm not very receptive to pre-fiat Kritiks. If you aren't sure about the distinction, think about whether your alternative negates the resolution. For example, if the resolution is "The US gov should do [x]", and your alternative is "The US gov should not do [x]" or "The US gov should instead do [y]", that's fine. If your alternative is only "People around the world should..." or "The judge should..." or "The debate community should...," I'm probably not going to enjoy it. If the alt doesn't even have an actor and is just to "reject the aff," that's even worse.

- Although I’m generally well-versed with the basic ones like Cap/Security/Fem K, my understanding of the more esoteric ones falls off. Although I will try to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, I haven’t spent much time reading 1970s Continentals, and you can’t assume that I’ll have intimate knowledge of their arguments ahead of time.

- I lean towards the Role of the Ballot being just whoever proves the resolution true or false (offense-defense is also acceptable).

- Fairness definitely matters. Education might matter to some degree. I am very loathe to consider anything else as an independent voter. If your argument is nothing more than "Util justifies slavery, so auto-drop them," I am not likely to be agreeable.

- If your NRs often include the claim, "It's not a link of omission; it's a link of commission," I am probably not the judge for you.

Miscellaneous

- I'm fine with flex prep (asking questions during prep time) if you want it. I think it's a good norm for debate.

- I do not care if you sit or stand.

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

Policy Paradigm

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

Read the Plan-focused/Util and Kritiks sections of the LD paradigm, but you can ignore most of the rest. Due to my LD background, I am much more willing to vote on philosophical positions. If you want to go for "Don't do the plan because objective morality doesn't exist" or "Pass the plan because that's most in line with Aristotle's notion of virtue," I'm totally fine with that.

Theory

- I still prefer clearly articulated Interpretation-Violation-Standards-Voters theory shells, even in Policy.

- I'm more willing to accept conditional CPs in Policy, although it gets really sketchy with conditional K's, especially if there's performative contradictions.

Miscellaneous

- I'm probably more willing than most Policy judges to consider analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make, and oftentimes just having a warranted argument is sufficient.

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

Public Forum Paradigm

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

I understand that Public Forum has different end goals than LD or Policy. I will try to evaluate it through the following in contrast to LD or Policy:

- I will not require explicit ethical frameworks. If something sounds bad, like "It kills people" or "It hurts the economy" or "It is unfair," I'll try to evaluate that in some gestalt manner. You can probably expect a little bit of judge intervention might be necessary in the case of mutually exclusive impact frameworks and lack of weighing.

- I will generally keep in mind who is "speaking better." Although this will not change my vote in most cases, if the round is really close I might use that as the determiner.

- If I ask for a card and you can't find it, especially if it has a statistic, I will drop 1 speaker point for poor evidence norms.

kelvinmaiohmai@gmail.com

I will disclose my decision and give RFD. Will also disclose speaks on request. For every minute you post-round me, I take away one speaker point (asking for legitimate feedback is ok). Please be sure to read my paradigm in its entirety (yes it's long but too much information is always better than too little). I don't mind giving a summary before rounds, but if you neglect to read my paradigm and do something I don't like and then you lose because of it, that's on you. If you're looking for policy, you can skip to the bottom but reading through might help you. If you're looking for PF, skip to the bottom.

Cheating is an auto-drop. I don't care how hard you may be winning everything else, if you are caught cheating you will automatically be dropped.

Prefs:

1: Case, LARPing with an LD framework, philosophy

2: K

2.5 (don't dislike but don't actually like either): Theory (only if actually abusive), LARPing without an LD framework

3:

4 (strike me please): Friv theory, tricks, RVI, etc

Background:
Debated for 3 years in varsity LD at Northview High School from 2012-2015. Have been judging on and off for the past 6 years. Currently working as a quant risk analyst in the banking/financial services industry after finishing my masters in quant risk analysis.

Speed:
I'm ok with speed for the most part. Spreading is generally ok if you are clear, but if you aren't, I will clear you twice before I stop flowing. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed, you'll lose speaks. Make sure you look up once in a while to make sure I'm flowing and understanding your arguments (not an issue with email chains). Slow down a bit for taglines. Not an issue if you do email chains, but make sure you're letting me know which cards you're cutting. If you do email chains, don't forget your clarity still matters for speaks. For online tournaments, there might be difficulties and so I would prefer a generally slower pace in case issues arise.

Prep:
I'm ok with flex prep. Flashing doesn't count towards prep. Don't steal prep. I'm a really lenient and reasonable judge so I'll let you finish your sentence.

CX:

I don't flow cross, so if you want to make a point, make it in a speech.

Roadmap/signpost:

Please do this. It makes it easier to flow the debate and will make it easier for me to give an RFD.

Voters:
Please do this. I want you to write the ballot for me. Tell me EXACTLY why you win, and why I should uphold your framework over your opponent's. I shouldn't be doing the work for you.

ARGUMENTS:

"Tech over truth."

Tabula rasa

***I am a more traditional LD judge who accepts progressive arguments as long as they have a clear LD framework. I believe that the framework in LD is the fundamental difference between LD and policy, and so if you don't have this framework I will default to voting against you. If you only want to run policy framework, you might as well just switch to policy. I'm not asking for a super philosophical debate (although I do know a lot of philosophy and enjoy it), but I am asking for some sort of LD framework. Framework is like 70% of my RFD. Clash is good.

Adjust to your opponent. If you run something like K or theory against a novice, that won't reflect well in your speaks.

Theory and RVIs (3/7/2020 post-GA varsity state update):
I find theory and RVIs incredibly boring to judge, and I honestly don't even get what RVIs are since they weren't really a thing when I debated. Don't read theory shells if your opponent isn't actually being abusive, I'll probably vote you down. If both debaters choose to read theory/RVIs when neither are actually being abusive, I reserve the right to stop flowing and just flip a coin to decide winner. Both speakers will then receive a 27.5 in speaks. Friv theory is an autodrop. Don't waste my time or your opponent's time. Not a fan of tricks either. Don't waste my time with blippy one-liners. Reading the same theory/RVIs for every tournament is incredibly boring for me to listen to.

DAs:
Sure, make sure well-warranted and links to resolution.

K:
I love listening to k. That's not to say I'll always vote for them, but I will understand them and will vote on them if done correctly.

CPs:
Yes. I love CPs as well so I'm ok with them as long as they link and are unique. I will vote on a perm if your CP is non-unique. Kicking a permed CP is going to negatively impact you.

Impact calc:

Impact calc is good. I weigh impacts in the RFD if needed.

Dropped arguments:

Don't just say "extend _____ b/c opponent dropped it." Explain how the dropped argument impacts the debate itself

Above all else, have fun! I believe that if you don't enjoy what you're doing, it's not worth doing, so please have fun and relax. Good luck!

Other prefs based off judging rounds:

If you're going to read arguments on analytics/data science/economics/finance/financial theory/markets, please make sure you at least research the topic. I'm a quant in the banking industry and it can be frustrating to hear people butcher these things so hard. You don't need to have a PhD level of understanding, but please at least do some reading on it.

I've also taken some actuarial theory/insurance mathematics, so if you want to run super technical args about actuarially fair priced insurance/optimal insurance and stuff like that I'll understand.

Don't read identity k arguments while not being a member of that identity AND read a link that your opponent is speaking for others in their advocacy. It comes off as incredibly short-sighted, and if your opponent calls you out and says you link I'll vote you down.

Please no RVIs, this has been in my paradigm for a long time and I still have people try to read them in front of me. I've literally been in a situation of judging a break round where all 3 judges (myself included) did not understand what the heck was going on.

Please stop reading generic theory shells. What's the point of getting excited for new topics if your strat is to find one or two arguments and then stuff theory shells and spikes into your case? Where is the educational value in that (yes, generally I agree that fairness>education but that doesn't mean that education isn't important). If I can clearly tell that what you're reading is 80% the same as what you were reading last topic, you'll probably lose speaks. Only use theory shells if your opponent is actually being abusive.

For the random policy debates I judge here and there:

I'm pretty ok with spreading and args, so it should be fine. If I HAD to pick a paradigm, it would probably be something like case/impacts/DA/CP>K>Topicality>>>>>>>Theory/RVI. This is not set in stone however.

For the random PF debates I judge here and there:

PF is PF, and at its core it should be lay debate. When I judge PF, I will approach the round as if I were a lay judge. If you're going to LARP, you'll probably lose speaks and the debate as well. If you spread, you will lose speaks.

A few things about me (TLDR version):

I'm a senior debater at the University of Georgia. I debated for Johns Creek High School and Mount Vernon Presbyterian School.

Plans are good

Impact calculus is important. Framing the debate round is very important.

Clarity > Speed

Cross-ex is binding

Have fun and don't be rude.

Long version:

Framework - I'm a good judge for framework. Debate is a game and framework is procedural question. I’m persuaded by negative appeals to limits and I think fairness is an impact in and of itself. I don’t think the topical version of the aff needs to “solve” in the same way the aff does. If there are DA's to the topical version of the aff, that seems to prove neg ground under the negative’s vision of debate.

Kritiks - I think it's really hard for the neg to win that the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan provided the aff answers framework well. I've got a decent grasp on the literature surrounding critical security studies, critiques of capitalism, and feminist critiques of IR. The aff should focus on attacking the alternative both at a substance and theoretical level. It's critical that the 2AR defines the solvency deficits to the alternative and weigh that against the case. Negative debaters should spend more time talking about the case in the context of the kritik. A good warranted link and turns the case debates are the best way for negative teams to get my ballot. Tell me how the links to the aff uniquely lead to the impacts.

Counterplans - My initial impression of whether your counterplan is legitimate will be whether or not you have a specific solvency advocate. There's nothing better than a well-researched mechanism counterplan and there's nothing worse than a hyper-generic process counterplan that you recycle for every negative debate on the topic. I generally think that 2 conditional options are good, but I can be persuaded by 3 condo is okay. PICs are probably good. Consult/Conditioning/delay counterplans, international fiat, and 50 state fiat are bad.

Disads- I love a good DA and case debate. I've gone for the politics DA a lot in my college career. Normally uniqueness controls the link, but I can persuaded otherwise. Impact calc and good turns cases analysis is the best!

Paperless: If you are doing an e-mail chain please put me on it. My email is miriam.mokhemar@gmail.com. If you are flashing, prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. If your computer crashes, stop the timer until you can get your doc back up.

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are unhelpful.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence.

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time, etc. Avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor ELA, History, and SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s first two-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

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.

I am a relatively new judge. I have judged less than 10 rounds of Varsity Lincoln Douglas. However, that has given me a good perspective on what a good round of debate is like. Here is what I expect from the contestants

1. Do not spread. Speak at a normal pace and keep it simple and clear

2. Value, Value Criterion - make sure you link your contentions back to the appropriate criteria

3. Impress me with your articulation, delivery style and body language. Show passion but don't be dramatic

4. Convince me that you are better than your opponent - using logic and stronger contentions. Use intelligent questioning during CX- I don't take notes during cross, but I will pay attention to the questions and use of time.

I led LD at Walton High School '14 for four years and judged local tournaments while attending Georgia Tech '18.

I try to be tabula-rasa-ish, so make sure you give me impacts or conditions under which you win, which you should be doing regardless. For those only experienced in local debate, this means I know nothing about the resolution or your case (including what qualifies your winning the round or how to weigh arguments); I will take your case at face value and actively avoid drawing conclusions until you give them to me clearly.

I'm fine with progressive techniques meaning spreading and Ks, and I enjoy weirder arguments. However, I always go back to the framework debate.

Paint the neg/aff world for me

Notes:

- Ideally, you should be spending roughly a third to half of your AC/NC constructing and justifying your framework; don't be vague

- I encourage use of weighing, impact turns, and counterplans

- Cross-ex blind. Learning how to rephrase/restate/emphasize is good practice for real life.

- Fine with flex prep as long as both debaters are

- Prefer standing over sitting because it makes you a better real-life speaker, but I'm flexible if this is difficult