As a LD judge, I appreciate a complete case, including a cohesive value and criterion with supportive contentions. I cannot follow spreading and value good sportsmanship. I will keep an official time and appreciate those who keeps theirs as well.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 4 years in high school; I was a state semi-finalist, finalist, NCFL octo-finalist, and three-time NSDA qualifier. I debated for three years at Brown University and I'm now the LD coach for Upper St. Clair.

I prefer moderate speed; arguments should be well articulated to me and to your opponent. I hope that anyone I'm judging prefers to win based on their merits, rather than speaking too quickly for their opponents' (many of which may be local competitors) to understand. I won't drop anyone for speaking quickly, but if you win because your opponent cannot understand you, I will reflect that with low speaker points.

I majored in philosophy and strongly believe that LD is and should be a value driven debate. I'm open to most any argument, but I ask that your arguments be intended to engage with the topic and make for a meaningful debate.

Please do not go out of your way to make your position intentionally inaccessible or confusing. I will vote according to the the flow; regardless of my personal opinions on your debating style.

Disingenuous and gimmicky debate approaches will be met with low speaks; show to me that you've researched and thought more about this topic than anyone else.

I am a parent judge, please speak slowly and clearly and emphasize the key reasons why you won at the end of the debate.

Top Level

Former debater (Walter Payton ‘16 and Pitt ‘20) and former coach (Central Catholic high school). No longer actively involved and not familiar with the topic.

luisacusick [at] gmail (put me on the e-mail chain)

I'll do my best to make a decision based solely on the arguments presented in the debate. Your speaker points will benefit from specific and well-researched strategies

Please be kind to your opponents and partner! I am very concerned with the way (esp. national circuit) policy debate trains us to treat other people

Relevant Predispositions

- Condo is good. Counterplan theory depends on the quality of the solvency advocate and my proclivities change from topic to topic
- I default to kicking the counterplan for the neg if they win offense but don't win the counterplan
- Skills and process framework arguments are more persuasive to me than topic education arguments
- I don’t like how little evidence quality matters in policy debates. I wish it were debated more
- It pretty much never makes sense to assign anything 100% risk. Likewise, minimizing an argument's risk to a small enough signal means it's overwhelmed by noise, and that's enough to assign it 0 risk

I have no background in debate. However, with a PhD from MIT, I understand how to follow an argument and, most importantly, evaluate how well a line of reasoning is supported by valid evidence. What I mean by valid is that all data, findings, and expert opinions must be rigorously derived and presented to be counted. Feel free to challenge anything otherwise. In terms of communication, I don't mind fast pace, but you must be understandable at all times. Good luck to both sides!

As a LD judge, it is important for the flow to be maintained so that your criterion and values are clearly articulated to me. For philosophical arguments, your value and criterion must clearly connect to your contentions. This information will take precedence to cards. If you are speaking too fast then I may loose your points during your flow. I am fine with speed, but please do not spread. If you spread and I cannot flow all of your arguments then they will not carry through the round. I expect for you to be able to establish your declarations and standards without being condescending. You may keep your own time but I will keep official time. If you continue speaking after time has elapsed, I will not flow your arguments. Please do not look at each other during crossfire but rather speak to me. When you call for a card I will begin using your prep time when the card is handed over to you. I will keep track of your prep time and I will tell you when I start and end the time.

As a PF judge, remember that your speed can negatively affect my ability to ability to follow your flow. I am fine with speed but do not spread. Please be mindful when calling cards as this can take significant time away from the debate itself. When you call for a card I will begin using your prep time when the card is handed over to you. I will keep track of your prep time and I will tell you when I start and end the time. I will not follow your directives to do so and the time that I keep is the official time. Decorum is important to me. Although you may not loose the debate over decorum, it can affect your speaker points.

I am a traditional judge and do not respond favorably to spreading. I prefer debaters to speak slow enough so that I can understand them and loud enough that I can hear them.

I believe every debate is unique and, depending on the round, can weigh the framework debate or the contention-level debate more heavily. I like contentions that are expressed as short statements rather than one word-labels. I really don't appreciate it when debaters misconstrue evidence or misrepresent information found in outside sources. Please do not use debate jargon to make your case. I look for warranted arguments, clean logic, and clear voting issues. I also appreciate polite, civil discourse and great clash -- the two are not mutually exclusive.

As should every well-intentioned judge, I recognize that I have implicit biases that have been informed by power structures in our larger society, and I will work hard to eliminate any biases I hold from my own judging.

I admire all the hard work and dedication of high school debaters -- and think you are the hope for our future.

Name: Jennifer Mazzocco

School Affiliation: Taylor Allderdice High School, Pittsburgh, PA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 years

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: some speech judging experience throughout the last 10 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, Parliamentary debate, Congress

What is your current occupation? 9th grade English teacher

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery – I prefer a traditional, or slower delivery with a focus on robustness of fewer arguments rather than superficial treatment of a higher number of arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I prefer a big picture review of arguments in the summary speeches.

Role of the Final Focus – I prefer the final focus to highlight voting issues and review where the debate “landed” on those issues.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches – I am in favor of extending arguments into later speeches. I prefer thorough clash on arguments and if there is more new arguments or evidence to be presented, I value that debate.

Topicality - no

Plans - no

Kritiks – no

Flowing/note-taking – I support teams pre-flowing or flowing during the round, and taking notes. I typically take notes while listening on major points.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I think style is important, but ultimately I value argument over style. I think the substance of the arguments and the quality of rebuttals and clash is the most important thing in deciding a winner.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I think if they intend to win on it, it should be extended.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, they should do both.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Yes for grand crossfire, no for final focus.

I have completed the PHSSL Cultural Competency Course.

email: harrisrach19@gmail.com

NCFL: I'd prefer if you kept your mask on but I recognize that not every judge will feel the same way

TL;DR for prefs: yes if you're trad, sure for lax and well explained prog, no for almost anything else. we will not vibe with anything else and I'd like to give you the opportunity to be judged by someone who has the capacity to give your arguments the credit they deserve.

TL;DR: I'm chill if you're chill. Respect your opponent. Generate clash. I make my decision however you tell me to.

**Control F if you're looking for anything specific. This is extensive and is mostly a combination of my friends' paradigms.

INTRO:

Hi, everyone, I'm Rachael! (pronouns: she/her):

• competed in LD & PF for North Allegheny (Wexford, PA)
• was pretty trad, made my appearance at a few nats (notables: PA States, NCFLs, & NSDA)
• coached @ Olentangy (OH)
• privately coached some successful students ('21 VA state champ in LD)
• instructed at camps (LD @ CDC & PF @ BRI); authored briefs for CDC (2021)
• Allegheny College (PA) alum; B.S. in computer science, double minors in political science & philosophy
• Carnegie Mellon University (PA) grad student; M.S. candidate for information security policy & management.

i'm still heavily involved in the debate community; i judge for Olentangy when i can, but Ohio uses speechwire, so it's not recorded below. when i'm not judging, i'm running tab.

email me w/ any questions about the round

GENERAL DEBATE COMMENTS & OVERVIEW:

• Please don't be rude or abusive. (If you do not treat your opponent with respect, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks that tab will allow me to give)
• I believe in inclusivity in a debate. Proper pronouns, content warnings, etc. are all part of this as well. Use them. Be respectful.
• Signpost. Always.
• If you think you've gained any offense in CX, please mention it in your next speech. (I do not flow CX).
• If you're going to extend something across the flow, be sure to impact and weigh it. I will extend it, but I will not do the work for you.
• A PROGRESSIVE ROUND IS ONLY PERMISSIBLE IF BOTH TEAMS AGREE TO IT. (I would prefer to be a witness to this discussion so that I can ensure that this has been consented to by both parties). I will try to evaluate it as best as possible. Please do not expect me to be the 'prog' judge on the panel. I am, in every sense of the term, a traditional judge. (Note: I will be able to spot a lax version of a CP, DA, K, etc. Don't be that kid who runs progressive stuff at a traditional tournament, especially if your opponent has had little exposure to it or is relatively new -- "that's a war crime" - Dan Hepworth)
• I find this increasingly more important with the online format. Circuit debaters should make more of an effort to make rounds more accessible to trad debaters. I will not sympathize with your excuses for reading multiple offs against trad kids. You should have a trad case to read against especially novice trad kids. If you do not adapt appropriately, I will not hesitate to drop your speaks.
• I reserve the right to call for evidence. I will try to wait until the end of the round to do so, but if there is a lot of dispute over one specific card, I'll probably want to see it. (Please don't make me question your evidence, though).
• Please note that in most instances, I will only request evidence if there is a large controversy about it. Otherwise, I will only read or call for a card if you specifically tell me to (i.e., "Rachael, call for the card").
• (You should have evidence for a lot of the claims you make. Simply saying that it is a "logical" argument and that you don't "need" evidence to substantiate a claim will not only waste time, but it doesn't satisfy the normative obligations of a formal debate.)
• "Unwarranted arguments aren't good arguments" - Eva Lamberson.
• It is your obligation to not miscut or powertag evidence.

JUDGING:

I am a fly on the wall. Debate in the style that you want to. It is always good to be adaptable and able to fit the standards of your judge, but it is also good to have a style of debate that is unique to you.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (LD-SPECIFIC):

Note: I did trad. I coach trad. I write LD briefs for CDC so I've usually read a decent bit of topic lit.

• I try to be the best LD-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of an LD debate. Make sure that there is framework clash (please, please, please).

• Please, please, please give me a decent framework debate. This lays the groundwork for my decision.
• If you're linking in, follow through with that by showing how you better uphold the framework or better solve for the impacts of the round under the framework.
• Give me a better response than something that, at its root, is "their fw isn't good because it isn't my fw" or "my fw prereqs theirs" That does nothing to advance the fw debate.

• Don't spend too much time on the value debate. Morality and justice are pretty similar (note: not the same, but similar).
• "If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they're like 'my framework is rights' but it's clearly just util." - Eva
• Explicitly weigh under your framework
• At the end of the day, realize also that winning the framework does not win you the round and losing the framework does not cost you the round.
• For whichever framework that I buy (or still stands at the end of the debate), I will evaluate every argument within it. I will also take into account your voting issues so make sure to flesh them out and make them clear (please, please, please).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of an LD debate and I don't believe that I'm asking for too much of a deviance from that.)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the 2AR.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (PF-SPECIFIC):

Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.

• I will try to be the best PF-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of a PF debate. Make sure that you weigh your impacts.
• (PF defaults to util -- greatest happiness, greatest good for the greatest number).
• Scope, magnitude, and probability are just a few ways to weigh.
• (Be sure to meta-weigh if the weighing debate gets to that point.)
• I will evaluate which contentions still stand at the end of the debate and which impacts outweigh (but only through the mechanisms that you provide for me).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of a PF debate.)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the FF.

CIRCUIT:

Read whatever you want but I don’t judge or coach circuit enough to know the ins and outs of a lot of tech arguments. This means maybe you should give me slower overviews or not go for super complex tech stuff. Speed is generally ok but probably go like 75% speed max if you're spreading in front of me especially if it's something particularly complex because otherwise I will miss a lot and that's bad for everyone involved. At least slow way down on tags or if you're transitioning to a diff off or something thanks. I don't care much about adaptation argument wise but I’ll only be able to understand what you’re saying if it’s slow enough to flow

FAQ:

• Flex prep is fine.
• Don't call me "judge." Rachael is fine.
• If I'm nodding, it usually doesn't mean that I agree, but that I'm following your train of thought. I'm inclined to say that any other facial expressions usually mean what they suggest. I don't have a strong poker face so my suggestion is to adapt.
• I like when rounds are informal/funny/relaxed. I'll increase speaks if you make me laugh.
• I don't care if you stand, what you wear, if you swear, etc.
• I'll disclose if I can.

ONLINE ADJUSTMENTS:

• Please send speech docs even if you don't plan on spreading. Connectivity can be spotty and I think it is for the benefit of everyone in the round. Speechdrop.net, email, doc link are all fine. Don't send cards in the chat and don't spend over 2 minutes trying to figure out how to share docs.
• If you send something from your school email, it will most likely take longer to get to us since we're out of your domain.
• Time yourself and don't abuse your time. I will not flow, evaluate, or even consider off time arguments.
• Don't be stressed if I'm not looking at my screen. I usually flow on paper so I'm not really looking and I have a second monitor, which is usually where my ballot resides.
• I don't care about camera usage.
• Mute yourself when you're not speaking and/or taking prep.

RETURN TO IN PERSON TOURNAMENTS:

• I strongly prefer masking and distancing when possible
• pls do not attempt to shake my hand

yes, I am the girl who had the lil pump K read against her @ harvard 2018.

good luck! have fun! :)

I am a traditional lay judge who is new to judging. I'm very lay, meaning you should explain your arguments thoroughly while also being clear and concise. I will be voting off of whichever side leaves me with the strongest argument by the end of the round, defends their case while putting strong and extended responses on their opponent's case, and proves to me why their impacts outweigh that of their opponents.

I am a traditional lay judge who is new to judging. I'm very lay, meaning you should explain your arguments thoroughly while also being clear and concise. I will be voting off of whichever side leaves me with the strongest argument by the end of the round, defends their case while putting strong and extended responses on their opponent's case, and proves to me why their impacts outweigh that of their opponents.

I truly respect the hard work and dedication that all of the debaters put into this. I admire the time that each and every competitor puts into preparing to debate and then getting up in front of old people like me and debating.

This is my third year of judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates and I have judged 40+ Lincoln-Douglas Debate rounds so far this year. I expect the debaters to speak clearly and at a moderate to brisk pace. Your job in the round is to persuade me that you have the better arguments and if I can't understand what you are saying because you are not speaking clearly or speaking too fast or both, then that will not help your cause.

When judging I take into account 1) who has the better value and vc in the round and 2) who wins the contention level debate. I am not a fan of debate theory or philosophical debates. If you go that route, it better be impressive in order to get me to vote you up. I do weigh your performance in cross-ex heavily since that is the only true interaction during the debate. That being said, I expect that the debaters be respectful of their opponents during the cross-ex and throughout the round.

I like the use of sources and stats in the Constructive part of the round. I really like it when you are able to refer back to your sources or stats and use those later in the round to promote a point that you made or poke holes in your opponent's arguments.

In your final rebuttals, I am fine with attacking your opponent's case, however, I would like for you to tell me why your value, vc, and contentions are better than your opponents. In other words, tell me why you WON the round instead of why your opponent LOST the round.

last chance - i will have much less tolerance for circuit debaters trolling traditional debaters at this tournament, sorry. i don't mind what you read as long as you're not going too fast or being intentionally obtuse when you're asked to explain it

i have recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - please just call me Eva in round instead of judge. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I primarily coach traditional debate, but when I bring kids onto the circuit they typically go for theory and K heavy strats

• Affiliations: Hawken, VBI

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i have come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style. however, in very close clash rounds, i may lean towards arguments i find to be simpler/easier to vote for or that i understand better. to be open about my biases, i will say that i find myself voting for theory, phil, and tricks more than ks and all the above more than policy

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - email or messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)

Speak at a reasonable speed. If you speak to fast and my pen goes down, I am no longer listening.

I do flow the round. Please signpost and roadmap. It helps me track arguments.

Have fun!

Background for Bill Lemonovich

Extemp,Oratory ,Poetry and DI were all HS areas of competition I pursued during while in High School as well as American Legion Oratory

I was a policy debater for 4 years at Cal State University and enjoyed the State and National Tournaments;happy to have been inducted into the Debate /Speech fraternity :Pi Kappa Delta. Competing at this time was an incredible experience.defeating Harvard University was an Honor.

Email:lemonovich@verizon.net

High School teacher in New York, Montgomery County,Md.and Pennsylvania :German.Russian,World History and Psychology and Debate.

I have coached 10 HS teams in several states and have been a Tournament Director with 30 schools competing as well as organizing the Cal State University tournament a few years ago..Treasurer of the MCFL ( Montgomery County, Md. ) National NSDA tournments have included Kansas City,Las Vegas, Ft.Lauderdale, Dallas and Birmingham.Presently moving towards my Second Diamond status in NSDA.

Judging preferences :Clear, direct presentation of contentions including a clear statement of the R and a definition of key terms

~~ Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clear stressed,extended and REITERATED ..if you feel you have the winning arguments,it's worth repeating and stressing !

~~ Spreading is not clear communication...if you gasp and moan while delivering your speech I will not be pleased !

~~ Clash is imperative..you must convince me that your arguments outweigh those of your opponents !

~~ In PF and CX..teamwork is a must..your partnership should be smooth in in sync or it will likely be confusing

~~ I am not a fan of 'trick cases' or some variant of a 'Counterplan'..Make your case clear,logical and 'persuasive'

IE Judging

~ There is often a very 'thin line' between Ranking 1-5 in IE events..I look for Topicalty,a strong intro,2-3 major points and a

'Call to Action' when you speak..a little humor can go a long way...ENGAGE your audience..I want to be informed,enlightened and entertained..doesn't everyone ?

Background for Bill Lemonovich

Extemp,Oratory ,Poetry and DI were all HS areas of competition I pursued during while in High School as well as American Legion Oratory

I was a policy debater for 4 years at Cal State University and enjoyed the State and National Tournaments;happy to have been inducted into the Debate /Speech fraternity :Pi Kappa Delta. Competing at this time was an incredible experience.defeating Harvard University was an Honor.

Email:lemonovich@verizon.net

High School teacher in New York, Montgomery County,Md.and Pennsylvania :German.Russian,World History and Psychology and Debate.

I have coached 10 HS teams in several states and have been a Tournament Director with 30 schools competing as well as organizing the Cal State University tournament a few years ago..Treasurer of the MCFL ( Montgomery County, Md. ) National NSDA tournments have included Kansas City,Las Vegas, Ft.Lauderdale, Dallas and Birmingham.Presently moving towards my Second Diamond status in NSDA.

Judging preferences :Clear, direct presentation of contentions including a clear statement of the R and a definition of key terms

~~ Impact arguments by both the Aff/Neg should be clear stressed,extended and REITERATED ..if you feel you have the winning arguments,it's worth repeating and stressing !

~~ Spreading is not clear communication...if you gasp and moan while delivering your speech I will not be pleased !

~~ Clash is imperative..you must convince me that your arguments outweigh those of your opponents !

~~ In PF and CX..teamwork is a must..your partnership should be smooth in in sync or it will likely be confusing

~~ I am not a fan of 'trick cases' or some variant of a 'Counterplan'..Make your case clear,logical and 'persuasive'

IE Judging

~ There is often a very 'thin line' between Ranking 1-5 in IE events..I look for Topicalty,a strong intro,2-3 major points and a

'Call to Action' when you speak..a little humor can go a long way...ENGAGE your audience..I want to be informed,enlightened and entertained..doesn't everyone ?

James Lewis
Affiliation: University School

About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed home and played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.

LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):

Edit for Durham 2024: I thought this was explicit in my paradigm, but it was not. DO NOT SPREAD. IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHEN YOU SPREAD, I DO NOT INTEND TO FOLLOW YOU ON THE CASE DOC TO TRY TO DECIPHER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME!!!!!!

Edit #2- While I'm giving the oral critique/RFD please do me the courtesy of giving me your full attention. Specifically, do not spend the critique furiously typing while I talking to you. Signal to me that you are engaged. If you're not particularly interested in my input, that's cool, just say so and I'll save my breath. (Seriously I won't be offended. It keeps things moving along quickly)

I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")

The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.

My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.

I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"

Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.

PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.

Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

Edit for TOC 2023: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.

I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.

Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.

I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.

While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.

And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.

I judge LD very systematically. First, you need to establish what the paramount value in the round is. This tells me what every argument that matters should be striving to achieve. Then, you need to establish what the prevailing VC standard is. Emphasize why the VC you're advocating for is the best weighing mechanism for the round as well as the best means to achieve the prevailing value. Throughout the round, you should be impacting every argument you want me to weigh back to this standard. If you don't, I won't consider it. After you've established the standard, focus on the key arguments in the round. I judge based on the few quality points of major clash rather than a large quantity of arguments. Identify the key issues, explain why you're winning them (making sure to emphasize your warrants), and then tell me what the impact is and how it meets the prevailing framework. If you can weigh your impacts against your opponents and identify why I should prefer yours, so much the better.

Other general preferences: I can handle most speeds you talk at, though I prefer the standard "conversational to rapid conversational" pace. I keep a rigorous flow, and if you see me stop typing or writing for prolonged periods and just stare at you, you're going too fast for me to understand (I also won't say "clear" if you're trying to spread and want a sign you're going too fast--once your speech time starts, the only thing I'll say is "time" if you try to abuse the grace period). I do not like progressive or policy-esque arguments in LD. I won't drop a debater solely for running a progressive argument, but I think they have no place in LD. That doesn't mean I focus on "lay" or "traditional" arguments exclusively, just don't get up and run two K's and a disad and expect me to be happy about it. Focus on clear link debate, competitive warrant development, and weighed impact analysis, all geared towards achieving a framework, and you'll be fine.

Traditional Judge

One could consider me as both traditional parent judge and non-traditional parent coach. When it comes to experience, I have never participated in actual LD debate myself. However, I have a strong interest in philosophy, history and political science and have formal education in these subjects, even though I work as a physician. I am very much involved with coaching my daughter who participates in varsity LD debate. It means that I have spent some time on the topic that you are debating in front of me, and I am very well familiar with most of aff and neg arguments. I leave my opinions at home. However, it is your job as a debater to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Everything matters. You have to explain how you derived your values and criteria from the resolution, provide a framework, construct contentions which connect and re-enforce your framework, demonstrate superiority of your values and criteria via clashes and rebuttals. Non-traditional routes such as debate theory, disclosure, tricks, etc are fine but it will not grant you victory if it is your only strength in the round. You may talk as fast as you want but I have to be able to flow your round. I do not like spreading - it puts emphasis on your ability to talk fast ( perhaps beneficial to your potential career at auction (just kidding)) but takes away the essence of an interesting and constructive debate. If, in my opinion, you are talking too fast. I will let you know. I evaluate your speech skills and ability to think on your feet. You have to present yourself professionally and be courteous to your opponent. Throwing ideological labels and calling your opponent's arguments idiotic, racist, misogynistic, leftists, right-winged, etc will not win this debate. You have to prove your side. That is the point of LD debate. It is an honor to judge your round, and I take this job very seriously. Best of luck. I am looking forward to your debate.

I am a parent judge, please speak clearly and emphasize the key reasons why you won at the end of the debate.

I follow no defined paradigm. I prefer clarity, both in delivery style and argument logic. I’ll follow wherever you lead me but you need to lay out the yellow brick road. Value > VC measure > Arguments > Impacts. Establish the framework and fill it out.

I was my school's debate coach for five years and have been judging both public forum and Lincoln Douglas debates during that time period.  I am now retired but continue to judge for my former team. 

While I am ok with speed, please do not spread and be careful that you enunciate clearly.  If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to flow your speech and I will be frustrated at the end of the round. 

I do work my way down the flow and prefer that debaters argue in the order of the flow.  I do pay attention to dropped points but only if there is additional commentary on why the drop is important. Organizational skills matter so please go in the order that items were mentioned and try not to bounce around. If a round is close, I do consider voting issues to be a good way to break ties so please leave yourself enough time to include them.

I also expect all competitors to be respectful of each other. I will dock points for outwardly rude or arrogant behavior.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in high school, and have coached for the past two years with novice debaters. Most of my experience was in western Pennsylvania on a local level, but I did compete occasionally on the national circuit.

My judge paradigm is limited only by what I can understand, because I don't really have any preferences concerning how students should debate or how the round should play out. If you take sufficient time explain your arguments then you can do whatever your want. I'm fine with theory or k's or any other off args, but am not used to evaluating them based on the level of debate I usually judge nowadays. Speed is fine as long as I can flow (can follow the slower end of what is considered "spreading" but not ridiculous speeds). Still debaters should preference clarity over speed. If a point is especially important, slow down. 

I am a parent judge, please speak clearly and emphasize the key reasons why you won at the end of the debate

Mahesh Sane

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Speed

I am a traditional judge.

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.

The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

In general, You will come across more confident if you speak slower. Speaking fast means you are trying to hide something from the judge.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Speed

I am a traditional judge.

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.

The faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.

In general, You will come across more confident if you speak slower. Speaking fast means you are trying to hide something from the judge.

Former extemp-er, several years experience coaching/judging debate.

I value clash (don't just talk past each other) and clarity (if I cannot flow your argument it won't be weighed)

I enjoy good value debate, which makes it much easier for me to weigh the round

About Me:

Pronouns: he/him/his.

I'm a former PF competitor and former PF and LD coach.

I recently graduated undergraduate with a BA in philosophy and political science.

I am currently enrolled in law school.

Call me Jake in the round, unless you would really rather call me judge for whatever reason.

General Preferences:

I am a flow judge.

I'm generally fine with speed and I will tell you "clear" if I'm struggling to understand you.

You can run whatever you want in front of me, but I'm not super familiar with certain progressive arguments (e.g. K's, theory, etc.) so you may have to explain them a bit more than you typically would. Again, this does not mean I won't vote for them.

I want you to use jargon (turn, cross-apply, fiat, etc.). Using jargon allows me to know EXACTLY what you are saying and not have to guess. But be accessible, if your opponent doesn't understand a term help them out.

I am tech over truth, but clearly false arguments are often easily rebutted. Also, try not to be ridiculous.

I like multiple, clearly enumerated responses.

If you want me to vote off something then it needs to be extended in every speech.

Clearly point out drops and extensions on the flow, this makes my life easier (and the result more predictable for you).

Do weighing in your final speech. You will very rarely win every argument in the round. THIS IS OKAY. Acknowledge your opponent's strong points and explain why you outweigh.

Overall, just be clear with what you are doing and win on the flow.

If you have any questions about my preferences before the round, feel free to ask. Sorry this is short, but it's easier for me to list the basics and answer any questions you may have.

If you have any questions about my preferences or the round, feel free to reach out. My email is jaketomory@gmail.com

LD:

Have a V/VC (or some other standard) and defend it throughout the round, you can win on your opponent's framework but it's rarely the easiest path to the ballot.

"Saying 'my opponent does not achieve their fw' or 'my fw is a prereq' (especially without explanation of why it matters) should not be your only fw responses. all fws have problems. point them out. please." -Eva Lamberson

PF:

Second rebuttal needs to be responsive to the first (aka I want offense and defense in second rebuttal).

Summaries need to line by line for the arguments you are going for. It's 2020 not 2014.

I am new to judging debate. Please do not spread and explain any jargon. Explain why you won the round at the end of the debate.

I'm a graduate student and coach at the University of Pittsburgh studying Communication and Rhetoric. My research focuses on reactionary digital subcultures. I debated at Wake Forest (2015-2019, 1x NDT octofinalist, 1x CEDA octofinalist) and at Princess Anne High School in Virginia (2011-2015). 9 times out of 10, I was a 2N/1A reading non-traditional affs and going for the K, and I liked to read Marxism, cybernetics, psychoanalysis, Virilio, among others. My experience as a debater and coach is 99% in the policy format.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Ask me for my email before the round.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. Do not run from an argument. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

I enjoy judging any and all debates across the purported ideological spectrum, but traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in these debates and adjust accordingly, preferably by emphasizing depth over breadth. On the opposite side of the coin, K teams (and especially Marxist teams) who take me and expect an instant win will likely be disappointed by the outcome.

Written paradigms can only describe how a judge aspires to evaluate debates, not necessarily how they will actually evaluate your debate.

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. The technical play of the game determines the parameters of "truth" through which I evaluate the debate, but I hold myself to the same standards of basic pedagogical responsibility that I would hold in the classroom.

A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant, and evidence. Absent a clear extension of all three parts, I will not feel comfortable voting on the argument in question. Furthermore, arguments are not reducible to the evidence used to substantiate them. My evaluation of carded evidence starts from the analysis of the evidence given to me by the debaters, not my own reading of the cards.

I think that affirmatives should present and defend an inherent advocacy that solves a significant harm. I also think that affirmatives should be topical, but this does not necessarily require a defense of instrumental fiat. A 2NR that demonstrates that the affirmative has not met these burdens is likely to get my ballot. In other words: I am not the judge for five McGowan cards with a topic link.

You should be explicit about the model of competition that you are employing, especially (though not exclusively) if you know that your opponent assumes a different model. Framework arguments are useful for signaling me to give weight to your strongest arguments over your weakest ones. Please do not collapse the complicated and necessary debate about these burdens to an un-nuanced "role of the ballot" or "role of the judge."

Impacts are always relative. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts. This includes procedural fairness - even though I personally do not consider fairness to be essential to the function of the game. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I usually vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact unless someone has won that I should evaluate impacts using a different frame of reference.

Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic.

You should always debate the case. Having a K link on another flow or - dear God - putting the whole 1 off K onto the case flow does not count as debating the case.

I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who effectively balance mirth and rigor, respect and irreverence, and abstractness and concreteness. Also, being good at debate helps: I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals.

High threshold for: RVIs, "perm you do you," infinite condo, asking for perfect speaks

Low threshold for: judge kick, fiat theory of all shapes and sizes, no plan no perm

Pet peeves: tautological framework interpretations (e.g. "Topical affirmatives defend the resolution."), bad capitalism kritiks, choosing to debate online in order to maximize competitive advantage

But will this judge vote for Death Good? Yes, they will.

I'm fine with being postrounded. The debate that just happened may be static, but the ideas are not. You're allowed to be angry if I'm allowed to be cheeky - deal?

I am a parent judge, traditional, have been judging primarily PF and LD for the past five years.

You can stand or sit when you speak. Reading is fine, but please speak clearly.

Please, keep it civil and respect everyone in the room.

LD: Traditional. This requires a value and value criterion that flows beyond the constructive. I will generally vote against theory, ks, and other policy debate components. I will always vote against disclosure theory - sorry kids, no cheating on the test.

Speed doesn't bother me. I was a policy coach for years. HOWEVER, if you sound like you can't breathe or are repeating words because YOU can't handle speed, it will affect your speaker points and how I assess the round. As a judge, I decide who wins or loses. As such, your speaker points will be lower if you tell me what I will do in your speeches. Convince me to vote for you rather than thinking if you say I will, it will happen.

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fifth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater. Pref me high if you want a FLAY judge

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying on the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - It’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework.Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. Please do not spread. Please speak clearly and emphasize the key reasons why you won at the end of the debate.

Am updating this for NSDA Districts March 2024; hopefully by mentioning that fact it will force me to keep this updated fairly regularly J

Background/ experience, overall/this year: I have extensive experience as a former competitor, coach, and judge over a time period of like 4 decades or so :) I am comfortable judging in all formats, Policy. L-D, Public Forum, etc. Have judged hundreds of rounds over those years, frequencies vary year by year, but a decent amount these past several years so I am not “rusty.” (More on that in a second here). Judged and coached mostly at the high school but also a bit in college; much more in Policy and L-D than P-F but not unfamiliar with that format. The full gamut from state champions, national champions , TOC qualifiers all the way down to “junior high pre-novice,” the full gamut.

This year I have judged a very few LD and PF rounds, can count on one hand, but have not judged any Policy rounds. I have kept myself up with the topic, though, so I’m not completely uninformed; still, consider that especially with respect to the next section.

One thing which I would argue follows necessarily from the above, but which I ought to make explicit—given the above, I will not participate in, and do not believe it to be acceptable, the “flash-drive-sharing WITH THE JUDGE” of speeches/evidence during the round. It’s okay with the other team; I will ask for ev. after the round if I need to clarify any specific question that I have about it, but, I will not engage in that practice. FYI fwiw and the entire “Online” thing over the past several years has made things very challenging; now that we're largely out of that, the "regular rules" of in-person, all-in-the-same-room debating should apply.

For the rest of this, maybe this very brief one-paragraph “intro” will be all you need to know. In a conversation with a very-experienced (college) debate coach and judge, former debater and all that, he said something that I ought to start out with, and maybe by saying this I can spare the rest of all of this, or you can spare the reading of it. He said, “Most judges are ‘normal scientists’.” I guess that most are, many debaters (but maybe not as many debaters as judges!!!) are as well, and I guess that I am too, “writ large” admittedly. Still, I have spent a lot of time with those who arenot, there are plenty of them out there even if that’s only a result of the “law of large numbers,” I believe that sometimes they bring up points which need to be addressed, and, for those who would like to know exactly where I stand on those issues and how and where I draw the borders of “normal science,” well, you can read the rest of this. Or just stop here, or read it selectively, any way is fine with me. People always tell me when I start writing like this, though, “You should write a book,” and some of these topics do need book-length treatment, so maybe I should do that, and maybe this is a start.

Here goes

Judging style, ”in round” preferences/”rules.” In any debate, I hold that debaters have to “get the arguments for that round into that round.” Falling generally under the broad category of tabula rasa, that means I will listen to “anything” BUT that “anything” has to recognizably be presented as an argument in that particular round. Note that I mentioned above that I haven’t judged any Policy rounds this season. At this late point in the season, there are likely tons of things that “everyone”/most everyone might take for granted. I will still hold that that needs to be brought, formally, into that particular ground. To use examples from this year's Policy resolution, but they can be cross-applied to all forms of debate: "Projected dates of Social Security 'insolvency'?" Get that evidence into this round!!!! "Poverty level, regional variations thereof?" Get that evidence into this round!!!!! —intothis round!!!!! I would say the same thing if I’d judged 65 rounds on this year’s topic, the fact that I haven’t only underscores what I just said above. People who look at my flows after rounds sometimes see them as almost stenographic records of the rounds; I am glad that people can look at them and say that. Still, at the beginning of each and every round, those flows are blank sheets of paper, everything that gets written on to them is/was brought up in that round. If you want me to vote on it, get it into the round!!!!

“Paradigm” properly understood and more fully discussed, and some other important terms and concepts: I am comfortable with most paradigms properly understood. I ought to emphasize the “properly understood” there, and will do so in a second, but, most debates fall naturally into, and can be fully debated and judged within, one or even several of the major paradigms. Debating exactly which one, a/k/a a “Theory Debate,” is generally unwise, as most debates (most “legitimate” debates!!!) tend to fall naturally into a given paradigm, a “best fit” of sorts, so to try to argue these is generally unwise (caveat above was/is the word “legitimate” and more on that in a bit); generally, there’s a way that the arguments have been put forth that “makes enough sense that it ought to be followed through with.” [ …-> Define the word “gene” in genetics or medicine—“it depends but it fits where and how you’re using it”]

While theory debates seem to have gotten their starts in Policy, it seems like they're creeping into other forms of debate. I am not a fan of that, as they haven't gone well in Policy, but, to weigh in on one of what I guess are several or even many that may be circulating in LD (or BQ, possibly), and just one of what may be many, I would basically concur with a notion that an LD resolution (all resolutions, I would say) is "propositional." There are many discussions about that, as I see online if not in actual rounds; note that that does not necessarily impose the ridiculous burdens which many have taken that to mean, but, basically, if push comes to shove, I will agree with that notion.

Terms/concepts: The above does need to be unpacked in certain important places, and doing so fully would require a book-length exposition. (Gee, really??!!! In debate theory??!!!!) Taking one term above, and another “concept,” and addressing those two here, and the other “elephant in the room” in a separate section below: Term--“Legitimate” (or “legitimate debate/ legitimate argument”)—here I would mean the old-fashioned “blue socks” type of argument, and while I am guessing that those are out of fashion (yay!!!!!) I will still mention that here, if only to give you a sense of what I mean by “legitimate”—that is, “germane” or “non-non sequiturs.” Into this I would also add the old (hopefully old!!!!) tactic (if it even rises to that!!!) of a 1NC (or even 1AC!) reading like an Aesop’s Fable then unpacking it into (pseudo) Voting Issues in their later speeches. Absent said unpacking being a necessary interpretation, I would not consider that to be “legitimate.” So, those are extreme, but, well, just to get these out there. (I would be in very high spirits if many current debaters or even judges or even coaches had no idea what I was talking about there!!!!)

Back to “Paradigms,” Part Two: I will say something similar—albeit not that far out!!!—about “paradigms,” properly understood. A “paradigm” is something that can be used as a backdrop for a round to be judged/decided, I guess that s fairly well known but doesn’t hurt to make that explicit. (“You know, ’paradigm’ was a pretty good word in the English language until I got hold of it!!!!”—Thomas Kuhn). As such—as such—some things that are sometimes considered “paradigms” are actually not. “Tabula Rasa,” still listed on some JQPs as a “paradigm,” is not—it just “indicates what will get onto a judge’s flow” figuratively or literally speaking. Similarly, I’ve seen still listed on a JQP “recently” “Games Playing”—may do a good job of describing the activity as a whole, but, there is no way to use that to pick a winner or loser and/or make a decision whatever way one wants to say that!!! (Fairly easy to figure out why, if you think about it). So, again, circling back to where I started “way back when” :) --just debate a round in a/the paradigm into which it seems to be falling, the odds of a round becoming a truly apples and oranges issue is virtually nil as one side will almost certainly say something (even if they didn’t mean to!!!) that could subsume their arguments into the other side’s paradigm.

Now on to the elephant in the room. You could see this coming as some of the above cannot be fully unpacked without it (…some of the above, anyway!!!!!...)

Critical arguments/ Kritiks/critiques etc. Of course, could not not get to these !!!!!

Likely—or at least hopefully—one could see some points that I’d raised in the above sections as already starting to address some of this. Hopefully, if one understands these arguments, which anecdotally I have observed is …is …is --not all that common in the debate community

Truly this requires a book-length exposition, and this isn’t the right place for that. So, just a few “Generalities” here, “generalities” which would stand up to further scrutiny but which can’t be fully covered here:

--At their best, critiques/Ks/ critical arguments can be said to be “debate at its best, the true summit of this activity.” At their worst, they call into serious question whether this activity ought to be allowed to continue. The difference is that great; the facts of the matter have it where most of the time it’s the latter that occurs, not the former. Part of this is (probably) because…

--“Your idea is so far off that it is not even wrong!!!” Here that proverbial appellation is often apt. Every indication is that most debaters don’t understand these arguments, certainly these arguments properly understood. Many debaters (seem to) think that they do, but (again anecdotally, albeit a significant anecdotal amount thereof) from: the way(s) that these arguments are run in rounds; the places they are put into rounds and the ways that they get extended; after-round confabs that involve “Comments and RFD” discussions with debaters and coaches; plus “debate-tournament-situated” but non-directly round-related conversations with coaches, judges, and debaters –I get the very real—and very disconcerting—sense that most people in the debate community do not really have the most basic understanding of these types of arguments, properly understood. Not good, especially as this all has been perpetuated for a very long time…

--..a silver lining in this very dark cloud is that precisely because (most) debaters do not know (seem to not know) what they are talking about when it comes to critiques/Ks/ critical arguments, they “fail” (miserably!) in what they are attempting to do, fail so miserably that they sometimes (oftentimes!) collapse into other types of ("normal science") debate arguments, and, thus, can become issues in the round/voters in those ways, not in the ways that they were initially intended, but, still, “dysfunctionally” [in its literal meaning!] debatable in a given round. A "felix culpa" of sorts. Almost certainly not as effective as if the team had run other arguments instead of their pseudo-Ks!!!! Still, in a given round, they might (might!) “work,” inelegantly that that might be. So, my advice (and more on this in a second!!!) is, “Don’t run them, but if you do, just try to apply them to the arguments that’re in the round as it progresses and ‘monkey at a typewriter who knows some basic spelling and grammar rules of said-typewriter’s language’ you might crank out a meaningful argument or three.” (Again, more in a second here)

Affirmatives? Well, given the above, maybe this will make sense!!! “Critical cases?” “Sure!!!! As long as they’re topical!!!!!” (!!!????) “As long as what you’re saying can map on to the resolution in an affirmative sense,” I’m okay!!!!! [As part of what I was getting at earlier w.r.t. “understanding,” one of the ways to tell if someone understands something (as opposed to just “regurgitating” it) is “if they know it when they see it.” What I just said above is a perfect—THE perfect!!!- example of something in debate theory, it’d be a great test to use to see if people know what they’re talking about or just “parroting.”]

Given what I said above, I’ll say the following, and that serves as a good segue into my next (and final!!!!) major point here. Given what seems to be the case about critiques/Ks/critical arguments in the debate community, I believe that pedagogically “we”/the debate community ought to say/do two things with regard to them, with regard to the way it/”we” engage the students/competitors regarding them. (Well, okay, “Three” things, but the first one is “a priori” and that is “stop voting for them whenever possible and, most certainly, whether win or lose don’t give them 28.5 speaker points in those rounds!!!!”) One, I would say that if the debate community is going to continue to use these types of arguments and teach them to new and future debaters, it is requisite on the debate community to mention that “these ideas in the forms we are presenting them to you are ‘not correct,’ this is not really what So-and-So was really saying, the ways that these arguments get used in debate rounds are inappropriate 98 times out of 100, so before we go any further we need to add that in.” Tell the debaters that “what we are telling you sounds really cool and erudite and esoteric but it is not correct!!!! “ I believe that is requisite, and is probably (probably!!!) most important of all, but also I would add this one as well. Two, “Fun as they are, big-headed as you might get by sounding like you know something about these ideas, in almost all cases there are better arguments to run in given rounds, that most cases have non-critical arguments that are better than these (pseudo-) critical ones.” SO, even if these, by happy accident, somehow get “shoehorned” in, even if you can fit square pegs into round holes, you are better off trying other approaches, “Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments “ (“GOFDA “???) This then seems like a good place to segue into that. Now I'll get to my last and final major point (“and there was much rejoicing!!!”)...

“Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments” (“GOFDA”?) Hey, after all this, a long-overdue return to the point I made WAY above, namely, “normal science.” You know, there’s nothing wrong with actually discussing issues that pertain in some meaningful way to US arms sales abroad; to how those arms sales affect issues of war and peace / conflict and avoidance / population welfare or detriment; how we can engage in thought experiments and forecasts about how various proposals would/could/reasonably might affect those aforementioned matters; and “work” that it involves discussing all of the above using expert evidence and rational analysis. Wow, what a concept!!!!! Pardon the tone here and Yes most debaters are or can be “normal scientists” and maybe that gets boring, maybe you’d like to try other approaches just for kicks or maybe it’s just too much work, BUT, well, that’s what this activity does or can do “well” and there’s nothing wrong with that!!!! When done well, there is SO MUCH benefit to that that it’s hard to describe, explain. Don’t know if I even want to get started but various research that has indicated (old research!!! Not as sure this would hold true today!!!) that the knowledge and understanding of a topic that one gains from debating a HS policy debate topic for a season is roughly equivalent to writing a Master’s thesis on that topic (!!!!!!); that one can nerd out and watch a C-Span program with various past and present Undersecretaries of State or Defense or Ambassadors or Fellows at think tanks and sometimes see and hear that same level of analysis in a high school debate round (!!!!!)—what is wrong with that???!!???!!!!! So, if you are preparing arguments, I would say for any tournament but certainly for a season-ending one, but also certainly for me—“GOFDA”

Yes, each one of the above really needs book-length treatment, and maybe sometime I will give them that. For now, though, I believe I will just sign out

###