Background:

Judged 2016-2020

Lincoln-Douglass, Congressional Debate 2012-2016

he/him/his or they/them/theirs

(I'm not nonbinary. Normalize gender neutral language!)

‎

Universal expectations:

* Don't be disrespectful.

* Don't promote bigotry.

* Add me to the email chain: a.bissell.siders [at] gmail [dot] com

‎

Lincoln-Douglass paradigm:

I believe high-school debate should have three goals:

[1] Education to improve research skills (reading and understanding articles). Therefore:

* I generally prefer truth (evidence) over tech (theory).

* I generally prefer fewer but well-warranted claims over more but poorly-warranted claims.

* Quantitative evidence & impacts often beat qualitative evidence & impacts (unless you weigh them well!).

* [Research shows that empirical evidence does change people's minds (eg, Wood and Porter 2018). Bennyboi Shapiro ain't right about much, but he's right about "facts and logic".]

[2] Competition to improve communication skills (listening and speaking). Therefore:

* If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Guide me.

* I generally prefer fair-ish rounds with roughly equally accessible ground.

* I generally prefer clarity and concision over speed.

* [Non-debaters speak around 100-200wpm and comprehend 200-300 wpm. Aim below 300 wpm! Focus on compressing your sources rather than expanding your speaking rate!]

[3] Provide an accepting and enjoyable space. Bigotry has no room here. Don't attack your opponent, attack their arguments. Four-letter words are fine. Humor is wonderful. Be yourself. Relax, you'll do fine.

‎‎‎‎

Congress paradigm:

All speeches: Debate the bill!

* Stock bad: Debate about the bill! Don't give generic introductions. Don't give generic arguments.

* Link bill to impact: Don't just say "impact X is bad" or "X is good". Do provide evidence that "bill does Y and Y causes X".

* Weigh impacts: Do give impacts for each argument. Do weigh impacts against opposition's impacts.

Negative speeches: Demonstrate harm!

* Insufficiency is not a harm: Don't just say "bill is bad because it doesn't do X" unless you provide evidence that "bill is mutually exclusive with X".

* Complacency is usually not a harm: Don't say "bill is bad because it partially solves X, which makes people complacent about X" unless you provide evidence that "partially solving X makes people complacent about X".

First affirmative and first negative speech: Provide framework!

* Provide framework: Establish the framework to weigh impacts for the debate.

Later speeches: No rehash!

* No rehash: Don't make the same arguments unless you give new evidence.

* No rehash.

* No rehash.

Presiding Officer:

* I highly rank strong POs. Efficient, knows rules of order, commands chamber.

Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past seven years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated (I will judge spreading but will not flow what I can't understand, I will "clear" twice then stop flowing). If you are going fast- be prepared to share your speech doc.
2. I will vote by looking at both flow first then considering technical skills and delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins but have done so. Road maps are preferred
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice!!!
4. I am a tech judge who loves trad debate at reasonable speed. I will certainly discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round and really do hate a slippery slope but do not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts. The flow means a lot to me. I am watching cross closely but of course, will not flow the cross or vote off of cross. It only matters if it is mentioned in the next speech.
5. Impacts must be clear as in tell me literally "The impact is.." and I want to see voters in the final speech
6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting. Make sure you are not misconstruing evidence in any way. I am known to call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
7. Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE CASE. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth finding. LISTEN and analyze. If you are not responding, you are not winning the round.
8. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is hard to sell to me. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it of course.
9. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosphical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so! Show me that you have done the HW
10. I am a sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points.
11. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
12. As I grow as a coach and judge I have grown to respect cases that demonstrate creative, out-of-the-box argumentation. I am bored by stock cases and arguments that are overused and underdeveloped.
13. Disclosure Theory in round- I personally think disclosing helps grow education and makes for interesting debates but I don't want to hear disclosure theory as your argument for why you win. Work with what is presented. I don't think I have ever given a win to somebody running disclosure as a voter but I guess it could happen.
14. Use evidence challenges CAREFULLY and SPARINGLY- at the end of the day, it is usually a waste of time for us all. The judges are savvy enough to know when we are hearing evidence that sounds sketchy. If you don't buy evidence you can ask for cards but let's not do this repeatedly throughout the round. It breaks up the flow of the debate and becomes more frustrating than anything else. Don't hang your win on calling out one bad card but definitely call out untruths if you hear them and can prove them.
15. Decision disclosure- I will disclose if allowed by the tournament.

Side notes: I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like an ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Be kind, be authentic, have fun, and let's debate! :)

P.S.S. for any of my former debaters who read this: I think you are all incredible humans. I was a speech coach who got drawn into debate coaching and it has created the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you than I have taught any of you. Thanks for making me a better teacher and person. To Dylan, Kayleigh, "DaniEllie", Hannah, Maddy--- thanks for being my day ones. I am here for you always.

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom. You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

Hello

I’m a parent judge. Please run traditional rounds only and speak slowly so that I can understand.

Good luck!

My email is emilyxdan@gmail.com

As a returning judge, I have been trained in traditional LD - not progressive , please be aware when running your case, for flow, speed must be manageable, if you go too fast, those cards are dropped. Please note these two requests, control your speed and traditionally trained. Your V and VC need to win out! Also, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES BEFORE THE ROUND, Thank you!

Please do your best to state your definitions for the resolution. I've had it happen a couple of times where definitions weren't clear and it became messy. While I am okay with definition based debates, when it becomes exceedingly nit picky it can be a bit frustrating for everyone.

I'm okay with speaking fast/spreading to an extent. Just be sure you are speaking clearly and loudly enough that we can hear you. Please do your best not to mumble.

Ensure you are citing your evidence correctly in your speeches.

Notes on etiquette:

I will, without any hesitation, give you low points and drop your case if you are rude during and immediately following the debate.

A short list of some things I find rude:

Packing your things up before the last speaker is done

Laughing/talking while the other speaker is giving his speech

Throwing things at a competitor

Just generally being a bully and unprofessional.

*If you make it to finals and want your team members/friends to come watch and support you I'm okay with that. However, you will be penalized if your friends/team mates are disruptive and rude as well. This shouldn't need to be said but for some reason this has happened more than once.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L.

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 9/18/22

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, but 2nd Summary is too late for dumps of new arguments.

With 3 minutes, the Summary is probably also line-by-line, but perhaps not on every issue. Summary needs to ditch some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus, unless it is a direct response to a new argument in 2nd Summary.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - good idea to play some defense, but see above about drops.

With a Policy background, I will listen to framework, theory, and T arguments - though I will frown at all of those because I really want a solid case debate. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly. If I call for a card, I expect it to be cut.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

tl;dr: Look at me if you are traditional or policy. Strike me if you don't talk about the topic or only read abstract French philosophers or rely on going for blippy trash arguments that mostly work due to being undercovered.

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. Thus, I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD. If you are going traditional, value clash obviously determines the round, but don't assume I know more than a shallow bit of philosophy.

I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times - there just isn't time to develop 4 off in your 7 minute constructive, and I have to give the aff some leeway in rebuttals since there is no constructive to answer neg advocacies.

All things considered, I would rather you defend the whole resolution (even if you want to specify a particular method) rather than a tiny piece of it, but that's what T debates are for I guess (I like T debates). If we're doing plans, then we're also doing CPs, and I'm familiar with all your theory arguments as long as I can flow them.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand - know that I hate it when debaters take a philosophers work and chop it up into tiny bits that somehow mean I have to vote aff. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

In case it isn't clear from all the rest of the paradigm, I'm a hack for framework if one debater decides not to engage the resolution.

Policy

Update for TOC '19: it has been awhile since I've judged truly competitive, circuit Policy. I have let my young alumni judge an event dominated by young alumni. I will still enjoy a quality policy round, but my knowledge of contemporary tech is lacking. Note that I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."

- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3

General

I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.

Speed

I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.

Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff

I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.

Policy

Unfortunately, I am sometimes dragged into judging this event. I did policy a handful of times in high school, but I don't have the same level of familiarity with the event that I do with LD. Most of the stuff from above applies (i.e. no new arguments in your rebuttal speeches, an argument that's dropped and extended is considered true within the round).

I understand that you generally have to spread in order to read your 1AC or 1NC in time, so I simply ask you to slow down (relatively speaking) in your rebuttals and speak clearly when you spread.

Don't run ultra-esoteric kritiks. If your K asks me to do something like "embrace the queer suicide bomber," "embrace the death drive," or embrace whatever form of ______ futurism, I will probably be less likely to vote for it (to put it lightly). My paradigm is generally tabula rasa, but I'd rather be upfront about arguments I'm skeptical of and often don't follow. If you run these arguments, you will probably get killed by utopian fiat, or your opponent will respond at the level of the K and the round will essentially become a coin flip because I won't follow a lot of the clash.

Collapse and focus on a few key arguments if you're arguing over theory. The last thing I want is to have to vote based on some three second blip you made in one of your rebuttals and I didn't even have time to flow properly.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

About me:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ loyola: fall 2023 - present

--

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

--

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

--

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

--

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

--

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

LD and PF: Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.

Congress: As a scorer or Parli, I look for good speeches with good evidence and analysis, but also continuous participation. I believe Congress is an overall package, including activity with questioning, motions and amendments. PO's should be able to move the chamber along smoothly, and fairly. However, they must also recognize that sometimes this may be a new experience for someone in the chamber, and be sure that everyone understands how the PO is maneuvering the chambers, not just assume that it's just standard operating procedure for everyone. Be good to each other and you will often stand out from the competition.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

• Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
• College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
• High school and middle school mock trial coach
• College moot court coach
• Founded my university's debate program
• Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
• Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Stuff:

• A coach once called me a debate "hipster"; though I enjoy a lot of the more "progressive" arguments, my philosophy of debate still centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced. Talk to me, don't just talk at me.
• I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
• Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
• Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're torn between tech and lay.
• I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters connect to your framing.
• LARP begins and ends with an L :)
• I actually know all of the NSDA's evidence rules.

Speed:

• Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can flow it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Bad spreading will tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

• I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.

• Please don't throw the framework debate away. It's what makes LD special.

Kritiks and Theory:

• I haven't judged a ton of Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because, save those for something truly egregious.
• I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception. Look: disclo sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2024. Part of debate is learning how to analyze and respond to arguments on the fly. Yes, it's hard. No, I'm not going to give you a win for whining about it being hard. Here's the one exception: if you didn't share your case and you're super spreading (like 400 wpm) to the point where flowing is literally impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo.

Other random stuff:

• I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.

• I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

- speed is fine as long as it does not sound like a disclaimer at the end of a radio commercial.

- your opponent is not really your "opponent" but a colleague trying to prove his point. please be nice.

- try to maintain eye contact with audience even if mainly reading from your notes.

- prefer traditional for LD

Volunteer traditional judge.

While doing debates online, please keep your delivery slow and clear.

Be kind. Good luck.

I’m a law student at Wake Forest. While I have never debated competitively, I fell in love with arguments, studying economics and philosophy in college. This is my third year judging high school debate. In the past, I have judged LD, PF, and Congress.

General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is about excellence in argumentation, and arguments are a special kind of explanation that uses claims, warrants, and impacts to lead its audience towards the acceptance of particular conclusions. Debaters should keep in mind that the characteristics of a good argument are the characteristics of a good explanation. While debate is more than mere explanation, good explainers and good debaters do the following well:

• use plain language when possible;
• prize clarity above speed or complexity;
• offer a complete explanation of their reasoning, which, in debate, means fully explaining the claim, warrant, and impact of each argument;
• use tags or "sign posts" to organize their speeches in an easy-to-follow way;
• emphasize key concepts or important points through their delivery; and
• keep the big picture in mind by constantly relating sections of their speech back to their bottom-line conclusion.

Many debaters are narrowly focused on beating the other side. While winning is the goal of debate, beating the other side need not be the only strategy one tries. An alternative strategy is to approach each round with the goal of making the other side better. You might try conceding part of your opponent's argument, charitably interpreting part of your opponent's speech, or helping your opponent adopt a stronger premise. Believe it or not, this strategy often wins because it demonstrates confidence in your own arguments and builds credibility with the judge. As an added benefit, it improves the overall level of debate.

How I Evaluate Debates

I take notes during the round (also known as flowing). As soon as the round ends, I reconstruct each argument, giving special attention to what each side told me were the decisive issues in their final speeches. Next, I evaluate each argument with the following questions in mind:

• Logic. Were the claims, warrants, and impacts of each argument fully explained? Were there any gaps or unexplained steps in the reasoning? Did warrants offer strong reasons to back their claims? Did impacts communicate the significance of each claim to the debate overall?
• Evidence. Did the evidence strongly or weakly support the claims it backed? Did the debater state evidence accurately, or was evidence overstated in any way?
• Responsiveness. Did the debater engage with the other side's arguments? Did the debater refute 'straw men' or the other side's actual position?

Understanding an argument is a prerequisite to evaluating it. Unfortunately, I have to disregard any lines of reasoning I cannot understand. An intelligible argument contains a claim, a warrant, and an impact. So, for example, simply saying "my side should prevail because Kant said lying is immoral" does not communicate an intelligible argument. That statement, apart from additional context, is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. I might happen to know that Kant thought lying was immoral because lying violates the categorical imperative, but a different judge with a different background might not. More importantly, by failing to explain what the categorical imperative is and why lying violates it, the hypothetical debater has failed to offer a reason why someone should accept their argument. Having failed to offer any reasons, the debater has failed to engage in rational persuasion at all.

Speed

I acknowledge the benefits of a fast round. Unfortunately, I can only understand 1.5x conversational speed. If I get to the point where I cannot understand you, I will get your attention by saying, "Too fast!" Keep in mind that, by the time I have the chance to speak up, I likely have already missed part of your argument.

Competition-Specific Preferences

• For Congress, I place emphasis on delivery and on how well speeches contribute the deliberative goals of the body.
  
• For LD, I want to see values-based argument somewhere.
• For PF, debaters should focus on empirical argument. Values-based argumentation should take the back seat.
• For LD and PF, points go to the side that can effectively place empirical evidence within value frameworks.

Style Preferences

I will always vote for the strongest argument. However, all else being equal, I prefer:

• A small number of well-coordinated arguments to a great many disjoint ones.
• Nuanced arguments that concretely address the resolution at hand. Ask yourself: Can this argument be easily recycled for use in other resolutions? If the answer is yes, consider tailoring your argument more narrowly to the resolution at hand.

All debate styles - I do not read shared files until the end if I need to refer to a piece of evidence. Debate is supposed to be understood not read. I do not mind speed but make sure it is enunciated and intelligible. Watch my body language, if you have any questions if I am understanding you....Head down and flowing your speech...I understand you. Watching you without a pen in my hand....you are not making any sense to me and I can not follow your arguments.

Policy (CX) - I am a stock issue judge. Focus on the stock issues and why the AFF does or does not satisfy them. Spreading is okay but make sure your arguments make sense. Do not start a bunch of arguments in the 1 NC just to drop most of them by 2 NC or the 1NR. There are very few times an extinction argument truly works. Do not run one just to run it. Most of the time, it makes the NEG look desperate.

Lincoln - Douglas (LD) - Focus on your value and value criterion. Be clear on why your value criterion is better than your opponent's or why you satisfy your opponent's value criterion better than they do.

Public Forum (PF) - While it is easy to have most everything prepared and ready before the round, do not forget to address your opponents' argument and point out where you are different and why your side is the better choice.

If you have further questions please ask me before the round starts.

Please respect the difference between talking quickly and demonstrating hyper speed. I strongly prefer to hear the words of the debaters.

Also, be respectful during CrossX and allow opponent to answer your questions in a reasonable timeframe - not 1 second (unless it's a yes/no answer).

Background: I’m a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Gender Studies & Communication, and I did both LD and policy (with a brief stint in PF) for Dallastown High School in Pennsylvania. I competed on both traditional and progressive circuits, so I’m pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. However, as a competitor, I mostly ran non-t affs, soft-left affs, and kritiks.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email chain: emiwhite@sas.upenn.edu

* I care a lot about respect and safety in-round. Debate has a tendency to be a really toxic/hostile environment sometimes, so please don't contribute to that. Similarly, if at any point during the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, feel free to stop the round and let me know. I will not tolerate debaters being egregiously disrespectful or inconsiderate of their opponents. This applies to actions done knowingly that make the round inaccessible (e.g. not flashing your case when spreading, not giving content warnings for sensitive topics, etc.) as well as how you speak to/about your opponent (e.g. excessively interrupting them or being overly condescending). TLDR: just be nice y'all, it's not that hard.

**If you spread, EMAIL ME AND YOUR OPPONENT YOUR CASE. Ideally this applies to prewritten analytics as well (or really anything that is typed out and sendable). I cannot stress this enough! If you don’t, I’ll probably dock speaks and be a much less happy judge. I like to think I’m pretty good at flowing at high speeds, but there’s always the chance that I miss something if I don’t have a copy of it, especially since audio can cut out on virtual platforms.

Kritiks: I love them! This was about 80% of what I did in debate, so I love seeing a good K round. However, a bad K debate is probably my least favorite thing to watch, so don’t think that I’ll vote for any kritik no matter what - you need to explain your position clearly, especially your alt.

Non-T affs: I read these for most of my junior and senior year, so I’m very comfortable rejecting/reinterpreting the topic as long as you tell me why I should and what your aff does instead. As far as T vs. a non-t aff — It’s not my favorite thing to see (I personally think reading a K or counter-method is more interesting and creative), but if it’s what you’re good at, go for it. aff still has to explain where they get offense and why topicality is bad, neg has to justify why the aff’s non-topical position is uniquely harmful/abusive, not just why defending the topic is good generally.

Phil/framework: I’m familiar with the basics (deont, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) more so than any other FW authors (especially really obscure ones). I’ll gladly judge other phil - I just may not have any experience with them, so you’ll have to explain it clearly and weigh well. If you could give a quick overview of the theory in non-jargony language during your 1ar/2nr that would also be super helpful. Know your position well and clarify exactly what offense does and doesn’t count under your framework, and you should be fine.

Theory: I generally find it to be unnecessary and used to make the round inaccessible. If there is legitimately no other way for you to respond to your opponent and/or they've done something really really abusive, then read theory. Otherwise, be creative and use logic to tell me why their argument doesn’t make sense - don’t rely on tricky wordings or surprise interps to get my ballot. Also slow down a bit and explain - I will miss something if you rattle off 3 standards in 5 seconds with minimal warranting.

Tricks: I'm ok with one or two spikes in an aff, but as far as a completely tricks case - please just don’t. I will not be amused, I will dock speaks, and you probably won’t get my ballot.

Hi. I am happy to be your judge for the round. I am a lay judge and I am only familiar with traditional LD. Tell me why your value criterion is more important than your opponents and give me clear extensions along with weighing your arguments. I don’t disclose after the round.

Things I dislike.

- Spreading

- Being rude and aggressive in cx

- Policy arguments in LD

- Petty arguments like spending an absurd amount of time on the value debate, definitions, etc.

Things I like.

- Being respectful to your opponent and your judges

- Talking in a persuasive manner

- Please signpost if you want good speaks

- Also for high speaks please give me clear voting issues on why you should win the round at the end of your last speech.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts. At the end of the day, I will vote for the debater that can present me with the most persuasive and compelling arguments. Looking forward to a great round. Good luck debaters!