Lance Allen

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree University and have now coached for 7 years.

I think this means that I have a diverse background of knowledge for most types of debate. I am comfortable in quick K debates and also comfortable in more traditional rounds. I have experience in high level college LD rounds and I also have lots of experience with first year novice rounds. While am I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in a case/DA/CP debate. This means the K needs to be well explained. I tend to weigh Magnitude and Probability before timeframe until you tell me otherwise.

You should feel comfortable running any position in front of me! The most important thing is that it is well explained and well defended.

Debate is an amazing activity. I enjoy debate when arguments are clear. Numbering your arguments and explaining what your argument means for the round will help you win.

By now I guess I am an "old school NFA LD Judge". Officially: Policy, flow judge, who prefers nicer debaters who will crush their opponents without bullying them.

I could care less about disclosure. The affirmative can change the entire case in round for all I care.

Evidence is preferred, analytical/anecdotal arguments are a necessity as well

I will vote on Topicality. I prefer a traditional structure for T, beginning with one violation for one word in the resolution. Run multiple Topicality positions on several words if you prefer, do not place unnecessary definitions in the T Shell to suck time or confuse your opponent. The negative does NOT have to provide TVA's/examples of Topical cases to demonstrate the topic is not overlimited by the Topicality position. I prefer a clash over definitions and standards. I will vote on Effects T and Extra T as a severence issue.

I will vote on dropped arguments. As I am weighing the round, If I calculate too many dropped arguments, it weighs against the debater dropping the arguments.

Stop power/over/mis- tagging evidence.

I will vote against you for being rude. My definition of what is rude is all that matters. Just be nice and patient.

I do not want to hear profanity from children and young adults. There is a certain demographic of debaters who believe their profanity is well taken and is a demonstration of their passion, some judges as well. I disagree and prefer debaters to not use abusive language in rounds.

Arguments should be structured and consistently delivered. Be a full time extemper to improve your internal argument structure and the logical form of your analysis.

Roadmaps are necessary

Be organized

I prefer On Case and Off Case debates. Do NOT prefer one over the other as I prefer clash on the entire flow, line-by-line always.

Clash is essential. Do not read block after block without interacting with your opponent's argumentation and analysis

In my opinion, Kritiks are just lazy Disadvantages and do not weigh in round unless they have clear links to the affirmative plan and/or the affirmative debater's rhetoric and behavior in round. I guess that may defeat the intent of the K, but who cares. Have a link or I won't vote for you on a K. Do NOT ask me to intervene in the round with my personal economic philosophy and my opinions on capitalism. Please refrain from referring to me as comrade or language that asks me to prefer one debater based on my personal political and economic philosophy. We are not the same. It is up to each competitor to demonstrate why their framework is preferred and support that particular framework/s for policy changes and implications through evidence and outweighing the other debater with positive and negative implications. I will generally vote framework vs K theory. BUT, where I vote is not based on my opinion of the Kritiks of Capitalism etc., rather, how each debater presents their arguments and defeats their opponent's advocacy. I have voted for more Cap K's than I ever imagined in recent years.

Spreading is antithetical to NFA LD. BUT...If I'm judging, I prefer you do what is best for you. I can flow it and understand it all. You should be able to as well if you are spreading. For high school policy, do what's needed and go as fast as you would like. All debaters spreading should focus on clearly delivering taglines, natural pauses, tone variations, and actually understanding the blocks and evidence if you are going to go 400 words a minute. Focus on being clear in the rebuttal speeches. I have seen too many fast debaters totally collapse on the flow and in rebuttal time because of their inability to speak fast and think on their feet while maintaining a high level of organization in the round's arguments and the meta round burdens.

What happened to traditional stock issues? I need affirmative cases to demonstrate Harms, Inherency, and Solvency. I would like to see clear author advocates that advocate for the affirmative plan and Solvency cards that actually mention the affirmative plan as a way to solve.

Use CX to show me your personality and why you are winning!

I will weigh real word implications such as poverty and structural violence in favor of speculative or non unique implications such as nuke war and extinction from climate change

I do not appreciate topical counterplans and critical affirmatives

Give me organized, numbered, voting issues in rebuttals

The negative needs as much offense as possible as a strategy, but only needs to win ONE stock issue to win the round. Do not go all in for any single position as you have no idea what I am thinking in the round.

Some debaters should participate in individual events as a way to express emotions, ideas, and values that are not appropriate for debate.

Mainly, do what you have been taught and remember I may have my opinion, but debaters can win my ballot by being the best debater in the round and defeating their opponent based on what happens in the round irrespective of my old school judging philosophy. And do not forget to have FUN!

Background: My name is Alex Boehne (pronounced [BEY-nee] for those interested). In high school, I completed 1 year of Public Forum and 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas at Triad High School. I currently attend Southeast Missouri State University, majoring in cybersecurity with a minor in networking security.

I've got three big paradigms that usually decide the round for me:

1) ((!!!LD ONLY!!!)) Value debate - almost any debater can throw a bunch of facts out there and hope the judge understands what those facts mean, but good debaters can effectively take the cards that they have and link those back to their value and criterion. Remember: your V and VC are ultimately what you are supporting, and your evidence isn't going to be very useful if you can't say why it supports your argument.

2) Flow organization - this was my biggest challenge as a debater, and it just boils down to being able to effectively travel through the flow so I have the opportunity to track your arguments. Just make sure you make it clear with an off-time roadmap how you'll be traveling through the flow, and make sure to go down the flow so I can track your arguments. It's a lot harder to vote for you if I don't know where your arguments are going!

3) Voters' issues - so many good debaters ignore this one and make it way harder for good arguments to win! Make sure you allot yourself time to crystalize your arguments in voters and explain to me why you believe that you have won the round that I just watched.

Other than that, I don't have any preference for conventional or unconventional strategies (excluding abusive tricks), new ideas, or talking speed. When in doubt, I'm happy to answer a specific question you have about the round and how I'll be judging (although this is pretty much all of my thoughts). Best of luck!

I am a high school civics teacher who is relatively new to debate. My judging experience is limited, but I consider myself to be well informed in evaluating student work. As a judge, I expect debate participants to be respectful and I do not tolerate discriminatory, hateful, harmful, or profane language. I will allow cross examination to go a few seconds over time if there is an important question and answer that needs to play out. Clarity in an argument is more important to me than speed. While I recognize the importance of debate as a competition, I highly value the learning experience it presents for students.

I value logical reasoning over evidence, although compelling evidence cannot be ignored. I strive for impartiality and open-mindedness when evaluating arguments. Effective rebuttal strategies should encompass both offense and defense (not just defense), and I appreciate when debaters engage with each point individually rather than skirting around them. I have experience in college parli and have judged LD and public forum so I understand the importance of clear communication, although I prioritize the substance of arguments over delivery style. Fairness and equal opportunity for both sides are crucial to me. I value the ability of debaters to effectively establish and defend their chosen framework, though I also recognize the importance of flexibility and willingness to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas. While I appreciate debaters' commitment to their framework, I understand that finding common ground can be valuable in fostering meaningful discourse. While defending your framework is important, I don't necessarily expect you to outright win on it. If a framework is not provided by either side, I default to util. Professional conduct and adherence to debate etiquette are expected, and I rely on clear links to impacts to understand how arguments lead to their intended outcomes.

I believe that debate is an educational thing. Do not just read cards; analyze them and show me how they connect. I like to see a lot of impact weighing. I am also good with speed. For Lincoln Douglas, make sure you carry your value and vc through the round and show me how your case upholds them.

I'm an NPDA debater of 3 years and I debated for 5 generally.

all I ask is that you speak slowly enough for me to flow easily and have good clash with counterarguments.

Experience: As a “seasoned” debater and judge with 2 years of experience in High School debate at Belleville East and 1 year of college debate at Mckendree University, I bring a detailed understanding of the format, rules, and principles of debate to my judging role. I did both LD and Public Forum in high school so I have experience in both events as a competitor and as a judge.

Philosophy: I believe in evaluating debates based on the clash of ideas, logical reasoning, and persuasive argumentation rather than relying solely on technical skills or speaking prowess. I prioritize clarity, coherence, and depth of analysis in arguments. Speed is not an issue for me as long as I can understand your arguments. Argumentation is the sole purpose of debate so make sure you are addressing all of your opponents arguments and extending your own. Not only are you trying to convince me your side/argument is better, but you are also trying to prove it and that cannot happen if you are dropping arguments. Cross X is between you and your opponent so as a judge I do not flow it. You and your opponent should not be facing each other, you should be facing me but that does not mean I am actively involved. Make sure to bring up any points from Cross X that you would like me to flow in your speech.

Vibes: Overall, have a good time and argue your heart out. This is a learning experience and designed to be educational and enjoyable. Also this is a positive space so please be CIVIL with your opponent. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask. Good luck!

:)

I am a former Lincoln/Douglas and collegiate debater and a current litigation attorney. I learned many important skills during my time in debate that are applicable to various real world settings. Real world communications do not involve speed reading. A judge in a courtroom would hold me in contempt if I made an oral argument by seeing how fast I could read my notes. Likewise, I do not like speed. I like debaters to present their cases in a logical and persuasive manner. I also appreciate clash. Clash is best obtained when both debaters signpost their arguments and tell me where on my flow an argument should be noted. Finally, I appreciate being told why I should vote for you. Make it easy for me to record your arguments and to vote for you and I probably will.

Last thing- I am a fan of including the opinions of philosophers and historic figures in your cases. We may be debating current issues but I bet Aristotle, Socrates, Rawles or Bentham have offered opinions that are applicable to the topic at hand.

Last, Last thing- Have fun. This is a fun and rewarding activity. Don't take this or yourself too seriously.

I currently compete on the Mckendree University's Debate team, I do IPDA and NPDA. When it comes to debate I know a fair good amount. Therefore, when it comes to judging I look for the cleanest way to vote. However, there are multiple things to know when I am judging your debate:

1. When there is a voting criteria I always look for which team mets that best.
2. I come into debate with a clear mind, so I expect you to explain your arguments fully.
3. A story line that makes me feel like I have to vote for you. Story lines allow for a clear way to get your point across while proving your point matters.
4. This also goes with impact arguments. Tell me I need to vote this way because if I don't this will happen.
5. I will vote on presumption if need be.
6. I prefer when arguments are clear, make sure your argument makes sense.
7. I don't flow CX so don't assume I do, or that I will know what you are talking about in the debate if you bring it up without explaining.
8. Be nice throughout the whole debate. I understand that debate can be stressful but there is no reason to be rude.

Background: I did Lincoln-Douglas for 2 years at Triad High School. I currently attend SIUE and am majoring in History and Education.

I strongly believe in quality over quantity. It does not matter how much factual information you have if you do not connect it to your argument. Show how your value and value criterion relate to each argument, and show how each fact you provide relates to the argument it is supporting. Feel free to use unorthodox arguments, just be sure that they are valid and are stronger than your opponent's. Leave time for voter issues, it is very easy to get to the last few seconds of your speech and realize you have not mentioned them, but they are incredibly important.

When speaking, remember that I need to be able to flow your arguments, if you are speaking too fast then I cannot flow, and if I cannot flow your arguments then I cannot judge based on them. Ensure that when making a rebuttal you reference what you are rebutting, and if you reference your own case ensure you are specific with what you are referencing.

Speaker Points: I determine speaker points based on the quality of the initial presentation of your case, the execution of your rebuttals, and how persuasive your points are. Generally my speaker points are going to fall around the 25-27 point range, with 28-30 being for exceptionally high quality debating.