I am a PF debater but have coached/taught LD. My suggestions:

be nice, be clear and make the judges’ lives easy.

Brief Background:

Original “Ted Turner” debater, now known as Public Forum Debate. Mainly a Lincoln-Douglas and World Schools judge, but judge all speech and debate events. Currently community judge for Stevens High School, in Rapid City, SD.

General:

+Time yourselves, I will verify if needed.
+Keep the debate flowing, any downtime or off-time road maps more than 10 seconds should be considered prep-time.
+Speed is fine as long as it does not detract from clarity and connection.
+Keep it civil and professional, there exists a line between assertiveness and contempt for decorum.
+Do not rely on esoteric counter plans or kritiks/critiques, while they can be used appropriately, make sure your own case is sound.

LD Debate:

From its roots in the 1858 Senate Race between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate style is one of adversarial nature. As a Lincoln-Douglass Debate judge I am a purist; focused on logic, ethical values, and clear philosophy. Ultimately, all jargon and style aside, it is your duty to persuade the judge to accept your interpretation of the resolution using: Analysis, Argumentation, and Presentation.

Keep in mind the roots of this debate style, your job is to persuade the judge to your side. This relies heavily on your ability to be a good communicator. Do you connect with your audience? Is your argumentation sound and organized? Is your analysis clear and connected? Present your side however you see fit, I will follow.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is meant to be a more accessible debate format. Keeping true to its foundation you must appeal to your audience through reason, organization, evidence, and delivery. This is a public debate style meant to reach a wide audience. Quality raises over quantity in Public Forum Debate.

Extemporaneous Speaking (And Most Speech Events):

Argumentation, Analysis, Evidence, Delivery. These are my core focuses when judging. First and foremost this is a speech event, make sure to command the room and focus on the fundamentals of speech. The argumentation must be on-topic and the analysis needs to lead to a clear understanding of the topic. Sources should be diverse and naturally sewn into the flow of the speech. Your stance on the topic does not affect my decision, I support all ideas. Be organized and bring your audience along with you.

World Schools

Content, Style, Strategy. It is as simple and as difficult as those three areas. I appreciate that World Schools emphasizes the need for quality style. For years I have argued that if your content and strategy do not connect with the audience, they fall on deaf ears. Content should have sound analysis and logical attachment. True engagement is a key in WS. Take and give those POIs! Otherwise it becomes a dry debate, just reading speeches. Drive the debate and truly listen to each other. Focus on specific issues rather than debate theory or procedural arguments. Did I mention engage? Engage!

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. Don't paraphrase. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

"Slow Down" - me, on like 80% of ballots

For Public Forum: I'm a traditional, slower speaking public forum judge. I vote on the contention debate. Focus more on the logic and analysis argument. Don't use abusive definitions, and be rude or condescending at your own peril.

For Lincoln-Douglass: I focus on the value/criterion debate when voting, but if the debate is centered on contentions that is subject to adjust. Again, please don't speed read, and respect your opponent

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

As an LD judge, I am very pragmatic. Philosophy impacts the way I may view certain issues but to me, your position must be able to live and brief in the real world. I believe your value must be upheld by your issue contentions, and not just 'tacked on' to have a value. To me, your criteria is part of your analysis. It doesn't have to evaluate both side but help me evaluate and understand your case. I'm not opposed to subsuming a criteria (or value) and using it to your advantage but it is not required. Also, criteria usually doesn't factor much in my decision. My focus is on whether you prove the resolution true (if you're affirmative) or false (if you're negative) and whether there is value in voting for that position. Finally, to me, this is a communication activity so too much speed is not appreciated. While I'll do my best with speed, you jeopardize your persuasion and my ability to flow you. Signposting to help with flowing is also appreciated.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas in high school in the late 90’s. I also competed in Oratory for speech. I judged while I was in college for a few years while I attended South Dakota State University. In 2022, I found my way back to the speech and debate world to be a judge.

Debate: I like a clear debate. I do watch to see if you can uphold your value with your criterion while you are making your case, and while you are rebutting your opponent’s case. I want you to lay it out for me clearly. I make my decisions on who upheld their case the best throughout the round and gave compelling rebuttals. I am not as worried about pulling cards or evidence. Having examples or evidence in your case is good but isn’t my main reason for voting one way or the other. Sometimes you can make evidence say anything you want it to. A good logical debate with clear value and criterion being upheld and a good flow of arguments is what I am looking for.

Speed: I don’t mind a fast-paced debate if you are still clear and understandable.

Signposting: I like it when you are clear as to what you are covering first and how you plan on moving through the flow.

Cross-X: I like a good cross-x.

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable. If you are going to use speed as part of a strategy, I would rather you use the extra time you save to go more in-depth on fewer arguments rather than creating more, not as well-fleshed-out arguments.

Framework

If two competing frameworks offer substantially different views of the round, I will evaluate it based on whichever team persuades me to use their framing. So, yes, I will vote on a framework and mentally adopt that framing to evaluate the impacts of the round. Strategically, it would be best to tell me how you win under both frameworks if you are unsure which framework is more persuasive to me. If the framing is fairly similar, I would hope the debaters would recognize that sooner rather than later and mutually agree so there is more time to focus on the core issues of the topic.

Tips

(I don't expect you to follow this exactly. You debate how you feel best. These are just the styles I am more likely to understand, appreciate, and ultimately vote for because it is how I teach my students. You utilize this information however you like.)

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting. Also, I have found debaters more successful when they can cross-apply evidence or arguments from their own contentions to attack the opps case. It seems to make things more organized because less evidence is being brought in, and thus, the debate becomes more focused on the quality of the argumentation.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy-looking face. Don’t think I disagree with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their own case. If you can defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. I wouldn’t mind a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech if you can. On the same note, if the other team does drop key arguments on the case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

You should select two or three main voting issues for the final focus. The speech's last 15-20 seconds should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that suits you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me

I will if you ask me to call for evidence to be evaluated.

Please don't try and avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. Evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate. Try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone confident and standing their ground and someone using rudeness to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

As just a general observation, conceding a few arguments that might legitimately be untrue puts you in a better position than trying to defend every aspect and piece of evidence of your case. The amount of time and energy it takes to defend legitimately untrue arguments is not worth what you lose on other, stronger arguments. Just pick and choose wisely.aker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.

I debated 20+ years ago when Policy Debate was in it's glory and we carried totes of paper evidence vs. laptops into rounds. A Deuel High School graduate I take pride in how Debate doesn't separate small from large schools when competing. I learned volumes from the people I debated and wasn't limited by school size. I am comfortable judging all events and levels.

Prima Facie - traditional judge - Sign post and be reasonable. Speak loud and proud. Remember this is a game - play the game, but don't play dirty. Sell me on the "why" behind the "what" of any side you are taking. Each issue stands on it's own.

I am a former Democrat turned Republican by life experience - 4 kids, Catholic and married to a small business owner. Work full time and dabble with ranching/farming. Rural America has my heart. We all add value in different ways and different times in life. The lens which we see our value will shift depending on our calling and phase of life we are in.

I debated for four years - two years of policy, two years of public forum, and four years of international extemp. I can keep up with speed (and keep a rigorous flow), but also believe in the importance of quality persuasive speech. I'd rather hear 2-3 well-thought-out and well-defended arguments than ten random contentions thrown out at rapid speed. A few specifics:

1) When extending evidence, make sure that you extend the ARGUMENT and its relevance, not just the author and year.

2) I'm indifferent about roadmaps - but if the roadmap takes too long (or starts making arguments), I'll start the clock.

3) Weigh arguments in your rebuttals. If you tell me how to evaluate the round, but the other team doesn't, I will evaluate it within your framework (if it is emphasized and carried through).

4) Be good humans. You're debating a topic, not the value/worth of your opponent. Interactions with them throughout the round should be professional and cordial.

LD Specific: I'm a pretty traditional LD Judge, tell me how to evaluate the round, why that's important, and why you meet that criteria. Make sure you continue connecting your contentions to the value/criterion through the round - that's how I will evaluate at the end. Use contentions and evidence to back your value/criterion... not as the stand-alone reason you should win the round (this isn't policy/pf).

PF: Please actually get some clash into the round - that's what makes debate exciting. Be specific with your arguments/counterarguments. Carry your contentions through, and give me some solid impact calc at the end.

Background

I got my bachelor's in Religion and Philosophy from Augustana University (SD) and now I’ve been teaching speech and coaching debate (mainly LD) for Brookings, SD.

Ethics

Coming from the world of philosophy and ethics, I am particularly picky when it comes to respectful debate. Please keep good ethos form the moment you enter the room to the moment you leave.

SPEECH EVENTS

When it comes to Interp. and IEs, it’s all about delivery (and content where appropriate). Make sure your voice is loud and clear, but be careful in humorous / dramatic pieces. Things like laughter, screams, cries, etc. are often done too loud for a small room. I’ll comment on everything from movement, to clarity, to character and everything in between. For pieces that you’ve composed (orig. oratory, extemp., etc.), I’m looking for cohesive structure, good intros/conclusions, and clear main points that follow the purpose of the piece.

DEBATE

Overall:

I am fine judging however fast you feel necessary; however, go faster than conversational speed at your own risk. However fast you go, your presentation should be clear, understandable, and well structured. If I can't hear or understand it, I don't factor it into the debate or my decision.I also love clear and concise voters / clinchers in your final speeches!

Under the consideration of what’s listed below, I’m willing to listen to and judge based on what you deem important so long as it’s clear, relevant, and uses sound reasoning. As far as K’s, I’m open to listening to them; however, I’ve found them relatively ineffective, especially if they are not run well (you need to make sure they still have connection to the resolution).

LD:

This is my bread and butter. With a philosophy background, I’m pretty familiar with just about any philosopher you could throw my way. Particularly with the more popular philosophers, make sure you know how the philosophy you’re using works. If you don’t, it will show.

When it comes to how I judge a round, LD is a value debate and I think this should be the main focus. Your contentions should be purely to support your framework, not the only focus of the debate (it’s not PF).

PF:

I feel evidence plays a bigger role in PF than in LD, so I’m far more interested in hearing evidence-based reasoning in round. Just like LD, outside of this, I’m willing to judge what you, your partner, and the other team focus on throughout the round, just keep it clear and structured.

If you want to do speech drop/email chain that's fine I guess. My email is katie.jacobs@k12.sd.us

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

In an LD round I tend to vote for the side with the most substantive arguments as opposed to the side who has pushed to most arguments through.

In terms of speed, fast conversational is fine but nothing faster.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

BQ - Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you are building your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources.

——> Experience <——

He/Him

I debated LD for three years and was top 20 at nats my senior year, as well as state runner-up. I've worked debate camps 2020-2023, and am Sioux Falls Washington’s assistant LD coach!

Also feel free to ask me before the round about anything I might have left out from this. I tried to include as much info as possible.

——> Public Forum <——

Sometimes I get thrown into PF and I seriously question why. I prefer line-by-line analysis with smart analytics rather than you trying to dumb down your opponent's argument and then refuting a strawman. Go after their links, reduce the harm of their impacts, and outweigh.

——> Any Speech Event <——

I spent my debate career weaseling my way out of doing IE’s. I don’t have a TON of formal experience with it but I was the opening attorney for mock trial and I’ve done a decent amount of public speaking, so I know enough about what makes a good speech to follow along, but don’t have high hopes when it comes to technical feedback.

——> LD <——

tech > truth, generally. But if something is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false you can probably wipe it off my flow by just telling me “this is clearly counterintuitive and blatantly false” with like an extra sentence of analysis.

Even though I can certainly handle flowing a bunch of responses down, and I understand the strategic appeal of doing so, I think I fall more on the side of leveling 1-3 responses to a contention rather than, say, five. Three responses to EVERYTHING that your opponent says is also probably pushing it. I like a clear thesis with a strong narrative you pull through for me. Tell me a story of why I should vote for you and make your advocacy cohesive. This is always much more compelling than throwing the entire kitchen sink at your opponent.

I keep a rigorous flow, but understand that speaking skills are still an important persuasive element to highlight key points to me. If you start emphasizing something in rebuttal as very important I'll normally circle or star it, so it's in your best interest to have inflection. Also, what the heck is up with y'all extending a key drop in rebuttal but then never leveraging it? I've heard so many rebuttals start with something like pointing out that their observation went dropped, but then that's the last time I ever hear about it.

My eyes are normally glued to my flow during the round, so don't be offended if I don't look at you while speaking. In fact, If I look at you that's probably a bad sign because it means I don't feel like I have anything to flow. If you see me nodding along to something you say that means I thought of an argument and then you went on to say what I was thinking. If you do that then congrats, I think you're smart.

Yes, "solvency isn't a burden in LD" is an unwarranted claim, and the idea that no moral theory requires you to at least somewhat decrease the issue seems silly to me. The only thing that determines for me whether solvency matters is going to be the framing. I've seen too many rounds where someone runs util but then tries to get out of showing how they actually solve for their impacts. If your framework/criterion has anything to do with "reducing X", "minimizing Y", or "maximizing Z" then congrats you conceded to having the burden of solvency. NOTE: this does not mean "100% solvency", but rather I need you to show a mitigation of the harms.

On that note, if you like leveraging framework, then I'm your guy. If you like running deliberately vague/borderline abusive frameworks, then I am NOT your guy! Please don’t try and hide the ball about how things should be evaluated. It confuses your opponent and it confuses me. You can run in-depth philosophy without being asinine about it. Want to spend 2+ minutes alone on framework? Let's do it! But it better have strategic value! I'll listen to whatever you want to throw at me (so long as it doesn't create a hostile environment), just explain it clearly. On this note, I am of the opinion that Y'ALL ARE TOO SCARED TO RUN FUN FRAMEWORKS!! I am getting seriously tired of evaluating justice frameworks 24/7. If you ever want to run something but feel as if judges will reject it, use me as your guinea pig!

You don’t need to win your framework to win the round, you just need to win one of the frameworks and tell me why you win under it. My first step towards evaluating the round is deciding what framework to use. The more messy the round gets the more likely I will be forced to intervene and the more likely you will be upset with my decision. That being said, if you drop framework you're basically dead in the water for me. I find myself most convinced to buy someone's framework when they warrant it well and when attacking their opponent they do more than just read generics, but discuss specifically why the flaws in their opponent's framework expose the strength of their own.

Warrants matter more than cards. Markley '23 does not matter if it's not warranted (that being said though, you should run Markley '23 :)), and an analytic with warrants will easily refute any unwarranted card for me. If you cite a stat and when asked for an explanation, you just say "IDK that's what the study says" that's probably bad. If you're citing something you should know the reasoning behind it. Also: weigh, Weigh, WEIGH!!!

I will not immediately reject Kritiks and CPs. I used to be adamantly against them but have changed my mind in the past year. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative. If they can show that there is a separate moral obligation to pursue some other, mutually exclusive action, or that the fundamental logic/reasoning of the aff is flawed then that is a reason to negate. Therefore, I don't think either are abusive in an LD setting and if anything it's probably bad for fairness on certain topics if the neg just isn't allowed to provide some sort of alt to the aff. That being said, I'm not biased in favor of them or prejudiced against trad. Some of my favorite rounds I've ever watched have been super traditional, but it is in your best interest to level arguments against Kritiks and CPs more than "this shouldn't be in LD" without warrants.

That being said, if you're going to run a K INCLUDE ALL PARTS OF THE K!! The most ineffective K's I see in trad circuit are the ones that try to disguise it by making it wear a trench coat and sunglasses. Run a K, be clear that it's a K, and do a quick Google search for a video explaining how a K functions (The NSDA also has a free course on Kritiks that shouldn't take you too long)

I used to say at this point that I like topicality debates. I take that back. I expect to be in physical pain on this topic if y'all start to quibble about what countries are in the WANA region. Update: I was right! These debates do nothing but give me a headache.

Please line-by-line and signpost.

——> General Information <——

I'm incredibly passionate about making Debate inclusive and accessible. Be respectful to your opponent and don't use marginalized communities as props to get a W. There's a big difference between actually advocating for groups and just flippantly talking about the issues they face to get a point on the flow. Also be cognizant of the types of arguments you decide to run, and if you might end up alienating members of the community. Was not fun seeing friends get uncomfortable during the open borders topic.

I'm pretty tolerant of arguments brought up in round but don't bring anything homophobic, racist, xenophobic, etc. into the round. Please also provide a content warning before you read case if you are touching on sensitive subjects, and accommodate as necessary.

Verbally insulting your opponent will definitely tank speaks and is grounds for an auto-loss. Be good people.

~Insert generic statement about how while all judges have their biases, I try my best to limit it when making decisions.~

——> Evidence <——

Please be transparent with evidence. It's genuinely a pet peeve of mine if authors are cited out of context or are misrepresented. If I found out you're misrepresenting a card then it's getting thrown off of my flow, I won't consider it in the round, and your speaks are going to be at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. Too many successful debaters can attribute their success to their ability to conceal evidence violations, which is bad for this activity. That being said I won't call for a card unless explicitly told to. If you want me to read one of your opponent's cards, tell me to call it and explain why I should.

Yeah paraphrasing is probably bad for evidence ethics but my standard above applies, I just encourage y'all to exercise strict scrutiny if your opponent starts paraphrasing.

I will start to run prep for calling a card once you can actually see the card, your opponent taking time to pull it up will not affect you.

Please don't tell me to extend a specific author. Tell me the argument/subpoint you want extended. If I write down your author it's so I can look it up later and steal it for the team I coach (Go Warriors).

——> Speed <——

I can handle speed but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fan of it. you won't get voted down for going fast but just know I prefer that you make a 2-3 strong and well-explained refutations to one contention rather than blitzing out seven arguments with no warrant behind them. That being said if I can't hear it, I can't flow it and any extensions will not matter to me.

I'm a traditional circuit judge who likes to see clear links between framework and contentions. I am fine with a quick pace to the debate, but that should not be a hindrance to your case or the clarity of your framework; if your speed is a pitfall, that will be reflected in my speaker point allocation. Even if both sides have unclear frameworks, I'm inclined to go with the side that has the best framework. Your arguments should be as well thought out as possible. I am more likely to vote in favor of arguments that have been fleshed out as opposed to thrown in at the end of a round. If it doesn't get fully addressed in the round, I am likely not to flow it.

It's important to maintain a respectful tone throughout the debate. I won't tolerate racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc., and it will result in lower speaker points and a likely loss.

For prep time, I'll call 30-second increments and count reading/calling cards in your prep time. Please don't bring up new arguments or cards in the 2AR - it's not fair to your opponent if they can't respond. If new arguments are proposed in the 2AR, I am unlikely to weigh them in my vote and will also reduce your speaker points as I see fit.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,

1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)

5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.

6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)

Hopefully this helps y’all out, rock on ballers!

I did public forum debate for three years and extemp for four years. I'm more well versed in foreign policy topics than domestic ones, but I do know what's going on. I’m a cyber leadership and intelligence major and plan to work for the government/military.

LD: Stay on topic. I don't typically judge LD, but I know how to follow a round. I prefer truth over weird technical arguments. Do with that what you will I guess.

PF: Weighing is everything. I don't care if you have evidence that simply negates theirs or has bigger numbers, tell me how and why your evidence and your numbers matter more than theirs.

Both: Honestly, whoever I think debated better, however slight, will win the round. This goes for both, but especially in PF, but please don't stand up and use all this jargon wrong or in a way that doesn't really serve any purpose. I like actual clash as opposed to someone saying "cross-apply my 2nd contention" and then moving on or whatever. You're basically just saying, "my evidence and argument is better because it just is." That's not debate, that's lazy.

Email if you need to reach me: jacob.rook@trojans.dsu.edu

About me: I debated at Aberdeen Central for 2 years the first being my freshman year where I competed in Public Forum and the latter being my senior year debating in Lincoln-Douglas where I was a national qualifier. With that being said, I have a good amount of knowledge in LD and not as much in PF so if you have me in PF I can try and keep up but just be concise on where you want things on the flow and where cards are being used

Speed/Signposting: If I had to put myself on a scale of speed I would say a 6.5/10. I can handle a bit of speed but if you go too fast I will get lost and lose a bunch of things on the flow. In terms of signposting, I am not great at writing down the names of cards but try as hard as I can so please just tell me a little bit about what your card says and make sure you're clear on where it is supposed to be on the flow.

Evidence: I am all for analytical arguments so you do not need a card for every single thing you're saying as long as your argument has rationality behind it. Thus, I am all for chain arguments, as long as the effects you are saying will happen, make sense, and you maintain the warrant behind the cause of the impacts. However, there is a fine line between analytics and nonsense. Make sure that if you are chaining arguments and impacts together, that you have some evidence backing up the impacts in the first place and then you can make your argument.

Prep Time: In general I am all for being lenient with prep time. Meaning that if you want to look at a card as long as it does not take over 10 seconds I will not start running prep time but if it starts taking too long, then yes I will start to run it. So just do not take forever looking at the card and you will be fine!

Voting: I want voters! Please tell me why you won the round and limit it to just a few issues anywhere from 2-4 is okay with me. When you explain your voters do not just say what your voter is and move on, explain what it is, where it has been impactful in the round, and explain why you are winning this issue!

Picky Things: In general I like to just go with the flow of the round but I do think that when you are pulling through evidence please tell me exactly what you are pulling through and why it matters do not just say "Extend Blahblah '23" try to explain what the card says and why it matters. You also do not need to spend forever on this. Just spend a few seconds refreshing me with what it means and why it matters.

LD: I am more of a traditionalist in how I view the round. I do not want Kritiks, this is South Dakota, not the national circuit so please use the traditional value/criterion framework with case impacts. In terms of framework, I am familiar with the basics and a few outliers just from my own experience debating LD as well as the fact that I am a History major with a Philosophy minor so I am familiar with philosophers who are a little out of the box. In general though, if you are running an abstract framework please make sure to explain what this framework is saying, how it is credible, and why I should even care about what this person is saying.

PF: As I said in the first section, I am not well-versed in PF so please take it slow. Do not just throw cards at me and expect me to know where you want me to put them. Just try and be organized in your speech by organizing your arguments and noting where you want me to write them down on the flow.

Hi guys! My name is Zoe and I’m a former debater whose done her fair share of events. During high school, I competed in oratory and informative for my IE’s as well as public forum for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas my senior year, and I competed at the 2021 Nationals in Student Congress.

Debate in General: This can be a stressful activity and things can get heated in rounds, but I am not ok with disrespectfulness, rudeness, or other uncalled-for behaviors. In a debate round, I ask that you signpost well to keep the flow clean and allow me to catch everything you are saying and want me to know. If I can’t flow it, I can’t vote for it. I will time prep and speeches, but you are free to do so as well on your own and I encourage it as well so there is no need to ask if I am ok with it. :)

Pufo: This is an event to be understood by a person who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about and should be treated as such. I will listen to whatever you are telling me, but if I can’t understand it without prior knowledge it won’t hold any weight if you can’t make it make sense. If you run framework please, please, please debate it. It shouldn’t be something that just sits at the top of your case and doesn’t do anything else, if that’s the case I won’t vote for it. Again keep the flow as clean as possible, sign post, sign post, sign post. If you tell me where in the flow you are I can meet you there and listen to what you are saying better, it works out better for all of us in the end. And in your final focus I want to hear voters. Tell me why you win, and why your opponent doesn’t. My decision at the end of the round should only be challenging because both teams used voters and made it hard to choose the winner.

LD: I don’t/won’t normally vote for a winner because of value criterion debate over contention level and vice versa. I will listen to anything and everything openly but make it make sense. You’re value should make sense in the context of your case and your criterion should uphold it and your contentions should fit within it that framework you have laid out for me. If you run something wild and out there in your contention level please link it back to your framework so everyone knows what is going on, but to also make sure your case as a whole makes sense, if your contention doesn’t uphold your framework that won’t work very well for you in the end. Again please signpost for everything. Use voters at the end so I can see what you want me to weigh at the end of the round and why you think you should win, but keep it simple, 3 or 4 max will do the trick if you have too many it just becomes a list and I don’t have a concise grouping to make my choice.

Speech: In a speech round I’m looking for you to be passionate about you’re topic and really show me that you love it and care about what you’re telling me, make me believe it. I also ask that you pay attention to your peers and what they have to say. You can learn some amazing things from the others in the room. But also they have put in just as much time and hard work as you have and deserve the opportunity to be heard.

I competed in Public Forum Debate and International Extemp

Oral interpretation

I like the idea of different characters. I like very developed voices and pitch for each character. I like being walked through a story. I vote highest on emotion showed in character.

Extemporaneous Speaking

You will score higher if your points are structured, well timed and impacted out to the answer of your question. Tie your intro to your conclusion. I like the use of evidence to answer your argumentation.

Public Forum

I vote really hard on impact calc and good weighing. The way to get speaker points with me is to read case exceptionally well and have a structured summary with voters. Have a structured, numbered, and signposted rebuttal. Have a final focus that writes my ballot for me.

Lincoln Douglas

Truth over Tech

I view LD with a traditional lens.

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.

I was an Extemper for Aberdeen Central and I did Public Forum for 3 years. I have a very good understanding of a broad amount topics and can flow rather quickly but I do not do speed reading very well at all. I don't like straying too far away from the topic at hand but I am willing to hear you out if your topic and case are strong enough to sway me. Every round is a good round and make sure you are confident in everything you do because that's what this whole thing is about.

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.