The Tradition Cypress Bay
2018 — Weston, FL/US
Ayumi Barry Paradigm
Talk at a pace understandable to the average human being. Be clear concise. I take notes. I am going to be voting for the team/person with the strongest, clearest and the best defended. NO SPREADING.
Cassie Belle Paradigm
I am a lay judge. I do not like speed. I am a recent university graduate with a bachelors in Psychology and Women's Studies.
Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Paradigm
Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-present)
Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Boca-Delray (2017-2018)
Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 11 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage and now at Cooper City HS. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. To that end, I’ve judged in many local California invitationals (Cal, SCU, Stanford, SCU2, MLK, NPDI, 6x4, etc), including adjudicating many elimination rounds (including late elimination rounds). I was myself a college debater and did LD in high school (Parli was not introduced until after I was out of high school). I've judged finals for the TOC for the California Cup (Parli Debate's TOC) five times over the last few years. I've coached all forms of debate (though LD, PF and Parli most extensively) and have adjudicated late elim rounds in all forms of debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 2 years.
First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments).
While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up. Many have tried, you will fail.*
I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.
If I gave you less than 24, you probably really made me angry or stood on a desk and waved your arms or something. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned.
I don’t subscribe to the belief that spreading makes debate more exclusive therefore should be preferred, but that doesn’t mean you’ll lose because you talk fast. There is an incredible distinction between speaking quickly to cover points and circuit style spreading, and trust me, I can handle either and have NO problem with the former. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.
PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.
I find double clutch breathing in Parli annoying, but I won't punish your speaks for it. You'll just make me cry a lot inside :(
Not that I like it in LD/Policy but it doesn't bother me nearly as much.
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.
Small note for LD: Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind.
Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.
Please note: I absolutely loathe the Batman K. It makes me actively angry. If you go for it, after reading this line, I will give your opponents double 30s and put my pen down and ignore you the rest of the round. Please and thank you.
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.
I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.
I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.
You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.
Lance Garrison Paradigm
I judged LD for the 4 years when my daughter was on the circuit and am now back in the mix with my son. Mostly, I judged in local and regional tournaments, but did a few JV rounds at Harvard, NSDA regionals, and NCFL nationals. I also debated LD when I was in high school (yes, we had LD last century), so I am more old school than new school.
- I am pretty big on framework and impacts. Give me a clear idea of how your arguments link to weighting mechanisms, impacts, etc.
- I will not do your job for you. Extend your arguments, draw links to your framework, and make it clear what you think the voting issues are in the round
- I judge strictly on what is presented in the round, but clearly bogus arguments or "evidence" will have little or no weight with me
- Be competitive but cool.
- I am not afraid of the spread, I can read fast enough to follow when you flash the doc - but during round when you are addressing arguments that are not on the doc, or identifying voters, or telling me why you win - then you need to SLOW DOWN.
- If you are discussing a deep philosophical idea, then it's probably a pretty good idea to slow down.
- Don't try to spread your opponent out of the round if they are clearly out of their depth, again = be competitive but cool
- I can't say I am the most well-versed theory judge ever. If you make a good argument that is well structured, then I am fine with it. That said, there is no way you can skew your opponent out of the round or sneak in some spike that automatically wins the round for you. So, I wouldn't spend too much time on it.
- I like the K and think it can really open up some interesting avenues for the debate. But, be careful of layering arguments that contradict your a priori arguments for why we shouldn't be having this particular debate in the first place.
- Have a STRONG link. I will be sensitive to the argument that the K is trying to grab infinite ground - because without the link, you are.
- less than 25 means you were NOT COOL. You will know at the end of the round, or maybe during, if it gets to that point
- 25-29 most of the time, I will give low point wins if your logic/evidence/case was just better at the end of the day
- 30 for the exceptional
Alfonso Guerra Paradigm
My daughter has been debating for three years and I’ve done some judging of public forum debates during that time. I’m not an expert on all the debate terminologies or formalities so a super technical debate may not gain an advantage.
The debate should be fun. It is about having a formal discussion about opposing arguments in a respectful and professional manner. Do not make personal attacks or derogatory statements, use offensive language or have rude behavior.
Many of the issues are complex so try to frame your case in simpler terms. The ability to incorporate wit into a difficult topic can be an effective indicator of your confidence in the subject matter. I value well-structured arguments that are presented at a moderate pace in a clear and consistent tone.
Theoretical ideas are good, but I’m an accountant so using facts, statistics and evidence to make a persuasive argument is better. Make the data relevant to your case and explain why it is important to your argument. I like to see challenging questions that can point out flaws or weaknesses in the opposing argument.
The time for cross should flow fairly with questions back and forth. If you can’t come up with a good question against the opponent, that suggests that they have the stronger argument, or you were not paying attention.
Finally, watch you time and be organized and concise. If you can’t make your case in the allotted time, then you are not doing a good job.
Jean Jeantinor Paradigm
My son started competing in Lincoln-Douglas this year, so my experience is short but I am more than aware of the amount of work that is put in to preparing for a tournament - so I am committed to making the best decision on what is presented during each round. I am comfortable with traditional LD style of cases. I will base my decisions off of your strength in framework, clash, and impact. Please speak at a slower more traditional pace, so I can understand all of your arguments - especially when using a philosophical basis. I have been trained using NSDA standards for Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
Charlie Karcher Paradigm
NSD 2020 Camp Tournament note - Yes I still want an email chain, preferably with everyone in the round on it. I am not in the camp Slack. I do not want your speech doc over Zoom. I don’t understand condo logic and I don’t want to.
Progressive, technical debate is the best version of K-12 pedagogy in existence.
This paradigm was substantially overhauled in June 2020. It reads the same whether I am judging policy or LD. Email me with questions. Good luck!
I’m fine with anything but am partial to policy-style arguments (T, K, DA’s, CP’s). 1AC should be topical, 1NC should be smart and strategic. Don’t try stupid theory tricks or shells on me. Speech docs should be highlighted in yellow. Be nice, be funny, be educational. Have the email chain ready when I walk into the round - it is more than likely that I will get there after you have. During the round, prep time ends when the email is sent.
ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume aff; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; yes DTD; yes condo; I will never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR; no tricks; a blippy explanation of negation theory isn't sufficient to answer perfcon.
Hi! I'm Charles (he/him/his). I like this activity a lot. I have coached and judged a good amount since graduating in 2018. I did LD in high school and now dabble in competing, coaching, and judging policy. I study International Relations and English at the University of Florida. My orientation to debate was mostly inspired by Jack Ave and Sean Fahey. I now find myself to be smack in the middle of the Policy/K spectrum.
If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. Treat me as a traditional judge and just win the flow in a slow, persuasive way. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it. They are spending their weekend doing intense intellectual labor because their child has the same passion as you, and, in many cases, they have it more stressful because they deem themselves inferior to tech judges that know their way around progressive debate. The least you can do is show some respect for them. Debate is fundamentally an activity of communication and you should be able to adapt to panels. If you choose to ignore this part of my paradigm, I won't be able to decimate your speaks (because we're probably in outrounds if there's a panel), so just know that I won't be able to sleep well for the coming week and have a perma-sad face because of what you have done. Pls don't give me a sad face.
Well and consistently formatted Verbatim docs are hot. Particularly appealing document formatting will be rewarded with praise and a speaker point boost.
I don't disclose speaks anymore. stop trying to break the bracket, relax, and enjoy your time at the tournament. that being said, i am partial to raising speaks if you bring me some form of caffeine to the round (if this tournament isn't over Zoom lmao). also please flash all analytics, otherwise you run the risk of me not catching them. my flowing isn't the best these days. sorry.
Here's my email: chazkinz [@] gmail [dot] com.
Here are my conflicts: Interlake, Sarasota, Oak Hall, Cypress Bay, Altamont, Valley, Newsome DB, Eagan AI, Brophy SA, Durham AA, Durham BT.
I write for Champion Briefs and have worked at Samford Debate Institute, NSD Philly, and Legacy Debate.
This is the type of debate in which I am most comfortable judging. Just explain your arguments well and don’t assume that I know everything that you are talking about.
You may find me to be particularly useful as your judge if your research involves authors including Marx, Deleuze and/or Guattari, Puar, Hardt and/or Negri, Jodi Dean, Butler, Baudrillard, Foucault, or Agamben.
LARP is fun. I like DAs and well-thought-out plan affs. Tech over truth, unless I’m told to evaluate impacts differently.
A well-cut LARP strategy with good internal links, impact chains, and recent evidence will be rewarded with high speaker points.
No judge kick
Good analytics are better than trash/blippy cards.
If you enter an image/chart/graphic into the round, I will not evaluate it unless you read alongside it a detailed description of the contents of the graphic in the same speech in which the graphic is presented.
LD specific note: The current norms surrounding card tagging in LD are absolutely abysmal. "Extinction" and "That's bad" are not tags. Those are just random words. A legit tag will outline the claim that the card makes and the warrants that it has in it. For example: "Nick Arozarena is a great guy - he's attractive, received a ton of Silver bids to the TOC in PF, and has a great sense of humor. That's Karcher in '18:"
Make the subject of the email chain as detailed as possible. Example: Florida Blue Key 2020 - Round 5: Florida KS vs Samford EG
See above for default assumptions.
Yes trigger warnings.
Yes disclosure theory.
Yes <2-3 condo
Yes (warranted, and, in most cases, carded) rhetoric/discourse K’s/DA’s/independent voters
No frivolous disclosure theory.
No handshaking or fist bumps.
No asking for speaks after the round.
No author indicts unless they specifically implicate the validity of the relevant writing that is from that author.
If I laugh in between speeches or during cross-ex, I'm honestly probably looking at memes so don't think that I'm laughing at you.
T-FW note: I think that out of round impacts (advocacy skills, movement building) are more convincing than in round impacts (procedural fairness, etc.), especially when answering micropolitical affs.
Anything else, ask me before the round!
Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. I don't think that there is much implication of this distinction either way.
Quotes that I agree with from people that are smarter than me:
“Please do not spread out debaters who clearly cannot spread. You can still win this way if you're really that much of a tryhard, but I will decimate your speaks because you're an asshole. Be considerate and inclusive.” - Sean Fahey
"If you want to read a case full of analytic arguments that sounds like you are reciting the alphabet or practicing how to count please, for the love of god, strike me." - Daiya Massac
"I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you invented." - Lee Quinn (GOAT)
Fun debate personality questionnaire (email me if there is a spectrum that you want me to add):
States CP good---X-------------------------------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing-X----------------------------Politics DA not a thing
UQ matters most------X--------------------------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing---------------X----------------Delgado 92
Try or die---------X--------------------------------What's the opposite of try or die
Clarity--X-------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption----X----------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face--------------------X---------Grumpy face is your fault
Longer ev---------------------------------X--------More ev
Fiat solves circumvention---------------X---------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff
CX about impacts-----------------------------X---CX about links and solvency
Fiat double-bind-----X--------------------------------------literally any other arg
1AR should be a card wall------------X---------------------------------No 1AR cards
(LD) 2NR should be a card wall--------------X--------------------------------No 2NR cards
Memes in speech doc--X-------------------------------------------I'm a boomer and wouldn't appreciate these
Omar Lopera Paradigm
updated fall 2018
About myself: I have debated LD for 3 years. So I'm ok with any argument. If you found another Omar Lopera on the judge wiki that sounds like a parent. That's my father(yes we have same named). I'm completely different from my father to judging.
I'm ok with spreading just as long if your opponent is ok with spreading. Personally, I think debates get boring if one debater is spreading, while the other debater doesn't understand what's happening.
Secondly, I prefer if your spreading, please tell where you are on the flow and pinpoint to what argument are extending across the flow so I can clearly understand where the argument is.
I'm ok with any plan text argument the consistent with the topic at hand. give me IMPACTS and Warrants.
I personally love the idea of the Phil debate. However if its super deep philosophy, please explain in 1AR or 1NC what it means before you start laying the groundworks for your arguments. I want to make sure it clearly understanding your argument and not misinterpret it. Also, make sure you give me impacts and weighing especially if its ideal vs. policy debate.
I'm ok with theory. If it is a wordy interp, just simply explains what it means. I believe the theory is the highest level of debate. In my opinion theory debate gets muddled so I wouldn't focus all your time on it. Also please extend the voters it makes judging theory a lot easier. One last thing, do not try frivolous theory, I think its annoying and waste of time.
I love Ks. Personally, I think the reject alt is boring, but I won't hold it against you. If you want my vote on the K debate. Really go in for Alt. Without the alt I tend to default aff since most K impacts are that aff continuing a system that bad, and if I don't see an alt then how I see it is why should I care about any of negative impacts if you yourself don't have a solution. So I see the first link, alt then impacts for Ks
I consider DA as an off so in my view it's above the aff. I see a DA's argument that doing the aff is worst than doing nothing. So aff has the burden to disprove the DA's.
I'm not used evaluating theory spikes, so try to avoid them if you can. This more of your benefit since I don't misinterpret a good argument just because I'm used to evaluating them.
You shouldn't expect anything lower than 27. Unless you straight up punch the other debater.
Other than that explain your arguments and you should be fine.
Keep grudges at the door.
If their prefer pronouns that debater would like to use. Please address the debater by their pronoun.
Please ask any questions about the round.
Monique Lynch Paradigm
New to judging LD. As such, I favor traditional style arguments over the more progressive elements of LD - lay arguments over theory, kritiks, Plans, counterplans, etc. I also detest, with a passion, speed at the sacrifice of clarity - I can't follow what I literally can't understand. If the message didn't come across from that - DONT SPREAD. I'll vote on pretty much anything as long as it is well-explained to me how it links into the resolution and why it is important. Clash is important, especially with framework. Make argument extensions - and don't just parrot the author name, actually re-explain the warrant. Weigh everything. At the end of the day, I vote for the debater that made my job the easiest - the person who's voters are the clearest, make the most sense, and best take into account your opponents strategies. In terms of round structure (like timers, seating preference, sit or stand in cross) anything is okay as long as both sides agree. You can email me your case or give me a physical copy, but I most likely won't use these unless I need to do serious evidence comparison.
Naria Menard Paradigm
Jesus Mustafa Paradigm
I am the Director for an Engineering firm since 2012 and regularly prepare marketing and project presentations on civil engineering projects and infrastructure. I have judge in speech and debate for more than six years and enjoy the opportunity to judge.
I have judged sevral categories of speech and debate, but prefer judging Public Forum, and like to see well researched smart arguments.
I do not presume to any side. I listen to student arguments. The stronger your argument during cross-examination the better.
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I will be fine.
Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.
I am a stickler to your debate time, please be careful. Watch your time during questioning/crossfire(s).
Make it make sense and interesting.
I want to hear the sources/cards in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I penalize for quoting non-existing cards for evidence.
Do not take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Do not cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe".
Michael Norton Paradigm
I am the head coach at Coral Springs High School. I have extensive experience with Public Forum, but I also judge LD from time to time as well. I've been involved with speech and debate since 2009, and I've been coaching/judging since 2012.
Here are a few things to consider when debating in front of me.
Speed: I can flow speed pretty well. That being said, I prefer rounds that can be flowed on paper rather than rounds where the speed is so excessive that I am reading off of a word document or email chain.
Off-time roadmaps: Please do not do them - if you need to organize your speech, do so on the clock.
Evidence ethics: Ethics can be a voting issue for me. If you believe your opponent is misconstruing a card, tell me to ask for it after the round. I will not arbitrarily call for cards that I personally find fishy, you need to tell me what evidence should be reviewed. If your evidence is being challenged, please retrieve it in a timely fashion. Speaks will be docked if you take an excessive amount of time retrieving evidence.
Decorum: Please be nice in debate rounds - while I ultimately make my decision based upon the arguments on my flow, I have no problem tanking somebody's speaker points if they are rude, offensive, judgmental, or otherwise unkind in a debate.
Susan Orlowski Paradigm
Experience: 4 years of public forum, 4 years of NFA-LD (one-person policy debate), and 2 years of coaching NFA-LD.
I am still in the process of formatting my paradigm for the high school circuit, so please excuse its brevity.
I feel that debate should reward hard work. I will call for cards at the end of the round, and my ballot and speaker points will be used to reward the team with a greater quality and quantity of evidence.
I prefer substantive arguments and default to a logical-decision maker paradigm. I am rarely persuaded by theory arguments that are not topicality or shells that do not have real implications for the solvency of the affirmative.
You should engage in evidence and impact comparison. Impact comparison should be a full exploration of the link, internal link, and impact card to produce a full analysis of the probability, timeframe, and magnitude.
Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is reciprocal and not exclusive.
Lee Quinn Paradigm
Titles: Assistant Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).
Head Coach at The Altamont School (AL).
TL;DR: I love debate. It is the greatest pedagogical activity the academy has invented. If you're a debater who wakes up and breathes debate, I'm you're judge. Just grab that mic and crush it.
3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin Invitee. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010.
Top Speaker at ADA Nationals. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin.
I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you invented.
Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it.
Meta level: Research skills and persuasive speaking are the foundation of debate. The team that persuasively makes the most arguments backed by the Brookings Institute likely will win my ballot.
To quote Jacob Hurwitz's judge philosophy, "the only thing worse than conditionality is the collapse of American hegemony."
Condo. 3 against a basic/big stick aff is about my ceiling. 3 contradictory condo and I can more easily be persuaded to vote on condo. For new affs, I think at most 5 condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.
Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs are the devil, unless you have a fire solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. You just need an interpretation about a world of debate that excludes these CP’s. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.
K debate is cheating in policy. Especially K affs (fact). Krtikal literature is obviously very relevant to being educated and ethical, but in debate this lit is bastardized for polemic positions that unfairly tilt debate in their favor for a litany of obvious strategic gains.
I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you. I won't be there to take your boards or bar exam saying "hey don't worry I got you if you make the wrong choice.
PS- Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by reasonable inevitability and alt cause args.
I am largely engaged with college policy debate levels of debate. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate. LD is often one big K debate which is fine in LD but I err towards util/consequentialism FW's. I can be persuaded pre-fiat impacts are extra-topical and can be rejected as such (likely not a reason to reject the team). But I do love me a good ol' fashioned value premise throw down from time to time, I must admit. It is the premise.
I'm increasingly frustrated with the liminal space public forum operates in. I'm so happy to see the progress made in terms of substance and clash, but am frustrated at the lack of norms that should accompany these progressive improvements. Here are my thoughts when judging a PF debate:
- Public Forum, if you're looking for your paraphrasing theory gatekeeper, you've found them. I will vote on paraphrasing bad theory ONLY IF the you read properly cited and highlighted cards that are sent out prior to your speech. Please dear god people, let's stop this spreading "Reuters '19" and "Forbes '19" non-sense. Atleast policy has to read long cards, that's WHY they have to spread. Paraphrasing makes debate impossible for both debaters and judge to genuinely test the veracity of evidence sources. This is an increasingly important issue too in our modern age of disinformation, fake news, and propaganda. Let's all work together to continue the progress being made in PF.
- I DO NOT CONSIDER URL/ARTICLES EVIDENCE. if you have to google/search for an article after I call for a card I will not evaluate the evidence and will treat it as an analytic. A CARD HAS TO BE CUT. There has to be some norm to reward actual research and preperation.
- I do not want to be a "policy judge" in PF. Please do not unload the canon and spread at 110%. If you want to do that, just come to policy debate and I'll be happy to judge it. I feel like my experience in policy debate/another debaters experience asymmetrical tilts the debate in a way that is unfair to debaters who do not have policy experience or experience spreading. You can make a ton of arguments while still going at 60-70% of your top speed. How do I plan to enforce this? I'm not entirely sure. It will definitely be reflected in speaks and will feel empathetic to the other team, but past that I'm not entirely sure. I have judged enough PF rounds now where debaters come in and spread that I feel like I am unfairly skewing the debate in one teams favor. Please do not make me feel like this! If you wanna spread, do policy/come do policy for me at Samford.
- Disclosure norm. I'm a BIG advocate of open source/wiki, but I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to vote down a small local school who maybe didn't know there was a wiki against a big school reading disclosure theory "to help small schools." It almost seems counter-productive. I think it can be an easy win if the other team drops it, or if its two big schools debating, I could consider it. But I literally judged a round where a team from a the reigning TOC policy champion school read disclosure theory against a small rural school with no coach and said it would help small programs. I'm not the biggest fan there.
Alex Reyes Paradigm
Hi. My daughter is an extemper and I've been judging LD for a solid year. Please consider me a lay judge, as I do not like spreading and will not understand K's and advanced theory. I will judged based on who perceptually, logically, and argumentative wise won the round. Delivery will be considered and cross examination is very important.
Kelly Schwab Paradigm
I've been coaching and teaching Debate for ten years. Out of all of the events, I’ve judged LD the most and because of the wide net it casts for an argument, I’m a fan...evidence can come in the form of philosophy, theory, empirical, etc...and there are abstract concepts like morality to substantiate - makes for surprising arguments...which I love!
I DO NOT have a preference for an argument - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote...I do suggest that you be careful with layered cases - especially when running a K...if you also run default arguments that contradict your K position then you just wasted your time on the K - so, my advice for winning off a K is to go for it with everything don't wimp and give me "judge if you don't buy that then..." argument...same usually applies to theory - both of which I definitely enjoy when done well :)
In the construction there should be framework used that's systematic for your argument - warrant & impact are essential to winning...while I want grounds for why your claims are valid I NEED you to warrant because there are usually too many factors in play to make such broad assumptions without a connective link - although it will be up to your opponent to point out those flaws in order for those to be turned.
I can handle speed or "spreading" pretty easily by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in an LD construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall). I will not read full cases...it is YOUR job to communicate your case, but I will check info if needed.
Ilene Schwartz Paradigm
I am a parent judge who has been judging debate for 4 years. Please do not spread, I can understand slightly higher than conversational speeds but please be reasonable with your speed. I am open to almost any argument as long as you can explain it well enough so that I can understand it. I judge speaker points based on how respectful you were to your opponent, (If you are making obnoxious faces and rolling your eyes at your opponent then your speaker points will reflect that). I understand that debate can get competitive but just remember that we're all here to learn and have a good experience. :)
Steve Scopa Paradigm
I debated at Pines Charter on both the local and national circuit and went to TOC my senior year. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com
General: I am very much a tech > truth person who will vote for any argument you make no matter how seemingly ridiculous or bizarre, all I need is a warrant. I also have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. My goal is to evaluate rounds with as little intervention as possible. Judges have become too dogmatic in my opinion, so everything that follows is merely a preference or a default, nothing but the arguments you make will factor into my decision.
- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read in the round.
- I am not exactly the best at flowing, so when you are making analytic arguments you should label them and sign post as clear as possible. Also maybe take half a second after author names.
- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.
- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC- making an argument in the 2n that says something like “this was just a dumb blippy argument” is not sufficient. This goes for 2ar responses to NC arguments as well.
- Believe it or not, I will vote on disclosure theory. I’m more open to it these days than I have been in the past, but I still think frivolous disclosure theory is super annoying. Not disclosing period is one thing, not cohering to every aspect of whatever you think is good is another. Also don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.
- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them
- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. This is becoming slightly annoying norm. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.
- I consider myself pretty much agnostic in terms of arguments, obviously every judge has their preferences but content has 0 effect on my decision.
- I don’t mind you “grilling” me, I think judges learn sometimes too and it can be good to keep judges accountable. Just be aware that if you are aggressive I will be sassy too.
- If your offense is conceded but you don’t extend it, it doesn’t exist. Too many affs take for granted the offense is conceded and don’t even mention it in the 2ar. Literally all you have to do is say “extend the offense, it was conceded” but apparently that is even too much for some people.
- Explaining why a card doesn’t have a warrant is terminal defense if you can’t answer with a clear articulation of a warrant.
- Saying “the aff is a good idea” doesn’t mean anything. You have to win arguments to prove this.
- I really like a good CX. People trying to be edgy without the personality for it is cringe, but people with the personality for it can be dominant. I won’t vote on arguments made it in CX, but I getting concessions or making people look silly will boost your speaks.
- This is just a preference but like... Reading T probably isn't violence. False equivalencies from K debaters are kinda whack and I'll vote on conceded arguments but if it's pointed out that it's a false equivalency I probably won't.
- If an independent voter doesn't have a warrant in the first speech I won't vote on it regardless of how long you spend going for it and explaining it in the last speech.
- If an argument is conceded it's conceded. Too often I feel like the 2ar is treating me like a lay judge over-explaining things. Be tech, I know what arguments are conceded. Obviously you should still weigh and implicate the argument if that's crucial to the 2ar/2nr strategy, but often that's not what is happening.
Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. If neither debater makes arguments I default to the following:
- There is no impact to a shell without drop the arg or drop the debater warrants so I will just eval substance
- Competing interps
- Norms creation model
- RVIs good
- Fairness is a voter
- Education not a voter
Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.
I also hate the spamming of affirming/negating is harder and will probably hurt your speaks a lil for it.
I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.
T: I don’t like it quite as much as theory but it’s still fun to judge. T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.
T “framework”: To be honest I am sort of agnostic as to whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense. Seems like you get access to literally everything but util which is plenty of ground, and I think most topics don’t semantically require implementation, and in fact, usually do the opposite. That being said, I would consider myself someone both debaters wouldn’t mind having in a clash of civs debate.
Tricks: This was my favorite style of debate when I competed and clever tricks are entertaining but that doesn’t mean I will instantly vote for you if you read them without winning why they are relevant (aka you are winning truth testing). The more clever your arguments are, the higher your speaks will be. Despite my old love for them, I usually have a low threshold for responses since the arguments are usually fairly weak. If you obviously just included an a priori because I am judging you and don’t extend a conceded one, your speaks will probably suffer. I also prefer you be more up front with them in CX if your opponent catches them, I have a lot more respect for people who are straight up about their sketchiness. If you are not the best at answering these arguments I wouldn’t worry too much, I will be more than happy to disregard them if you are winning a role of the ballot that excludes them or a shell that indicts them. Also, calling something a trick doesn’t mean anything to me -- tell me what the implication of the argument is. It also bothers me how tricks debaters have become reliant on the same resolved a priori every debate - I'd much rather listen to an interesting phil or K round than watch u extend the same a priori people have been reading for years. Think of new and clever arguments. Also, reading 16 spikes with a Kant framework isn’t a tricks aff and I really don’t like it. I judge these constantly cause I’m probably one of the few that will listen, and that hasn’t changed but don’t expect high speaks or for me to be impressed.
Ks: I feel like this is the section that needs the most updating because I do a lot of reading and coaching for the K these days. I really enjoy a good K debate. Despite my reputation, I’m a big fan of K’s and am fairly well versed in the literature. I really enjoy high theory and find good K affs super fun. I have read Deleuze, Butler, Wilderson/Warren, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Edelman, etc so I definitely think Ks like these are interesting and strategic. I occasionally enjoy judging these debates the most because of how interesting and unique the arguments are. However, I cannot stand unwarranted “this is just another link” arguments, you need to explain or give a warrant as to why what you say is a link actually is one. I also am not a huge fan of identity K's, and I may vote on some responses you disagree with, just as a fair warning. Additionally, I prefer to see line by line debate, and it seems as though a lot of Ks begin/consist of long overviews without much specific reference to arguments in previous speeches, which can be difficult to flow, so you may want to consider this when going for the K in the 2n/1ar/2ar. I also am very open to you kicking the alt and going for disads, and would almost advise this in front of me cause winning the alt can be a pain. The one K I am really not liking these days is set col, cause I think almost every response is just true and most debaters I’ve seen aren’t the best at handling them, but obviously I’ll still vote on it if you win it. Ultimately if this is your favorite/ best style of debate, you should go for it.
My favorite K’s: Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis
Larp: I was never a larper, never judged a high level larp round, and am probably not qualified to judge a really good DA v Util AC debate. I don’t particularly enjoy these debates, and you most likely will not enjoy me judging you but I will do my best to evaluate the round. If you can’t defend util against a dump or well justified framework you shouldn’t pref me, because “the aff is a good idea” will not get my ballot. (Update: For some reason people still stand up and larp and read disads in front of me so PLS don’t pref me or change up the strat, trust me it is best for both of us). (Update for JF20: I find this topic pretty interesting and am more open to listening to some cool plans/advantages. I would also really enjoy some larp innovation like rule util or some other more nuanced framework/new util warrants).
Fwk: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. I enjoy a good framework debate, and it is probably my favorite thing to judge, but it can become fairly difficult to follow at times. As long as you clearly label arguments and make sure to weigh I feel very comfortable evaluating these rounds. However, these debates can often become muddled and devolve into a chicken and egg debate, which makes it near impossible to resolve so be careful of that. My major has given me a new passion for interesting frameworks so I would love to hear whatever unique positions you got. Also extra speaks for meta-ethics that aren’t practical reason – let’s be creative people.
Favorite phil positions: Existentialism, Levinas, any interesting meta-ethic
Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so don’t mind my face. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.
How do I get a 30?
I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:
1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC
2) A trick I haven’t heard before (THAT IS NOT TERRIBLE)
3) A good analytic PIC
4) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting
5) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before
6) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well
7) Really good CX
8) Successfully going for an RVI
9) Making the round super clear
Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.
Carolyn Scornavaca Paradigm
1. What is your debate background?
I am a parent judge and have judged secondary students for three years for several categories of both speech and debate. My experience has been in the categories of: Original Oratory, Informative, Lincoln Douglas, Extemporaneous, and Public Forum.
2. How do you judge?
I deliberate on overall presentation of debaters - i.e., arguments and delivery.
3. Please explain other specifics about your judging style?
I am not comfortable with the rate of speed of the competitor being any more than what would be considered slightly above the normal conversational rate.
Ruth Scott Paradigm
Spreading is welcomed. Copy MUST be provided before starting your speech.
Judge heavily on substance and real world arguments.
Keep your tone friendly and civil.
Daniel Shatzkin Paradigm
Been around debate for 15+ years I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.
Run what you want as long as it isn't frivolous theory, or an argument that is disrespectful. You should be topical, I default to reasonability but I'm willing to evaluate T and theory however you tell me to. K's should have specific links not just ones of omission. Potential abuse probably won't get my vote on a theory shell.
I haven't judged policy regularly in about 5-6 years so my knowledge on the current k lit and common off case positions is pretty low. Aff's should be about the topic even if they don't have explicit plan texts. If you can tell my how you're addressing the topic you're probably ok. I default to being a policy maker but I'll vote on pretty much everything as long as it's a reasonably topical aff or the neg arguments have explicit links and are logical and understandable. I tend to prefer classic case, da, cp strategies but I'm willing to vote for the K if it's well explained. Avoid frivolous theory and T arguments like OSPEC please.
Lina Sosa Paradigm
I look for clear justifications, a lot of direct clash, and no spreading. Please do not overlook the framework debate (Value, value criterion). No flex prep. Avoid tech cases; I don't like theory, but if you run theory explain and analyze carefully. I will ask that you keep time. Do your best and good luck!
Lina M. Sosa
Sheryl Tracey Paradigm
I am a parent judge with experience judging on the local level. My daughter debates Lincoln-Douglas for Fort Lauderdale High School and this is her third year. I have more experience judging public forum than LD but I think I'm rather partial to the argumentation style and format of LD.
I believe debate is an educational activity that not only the debaters but the judge should learn from. Thus, I believe speeches should be given at or slightly faster than conversational speed. If you spread, I will not be able to accurately evaluate your arguments.
Arguments can be complex but must be fleshed out. I prefer traditional LD but I'm okay with LARP debate as long as it is well explained.
Please ask for clarification on anything that may be unclear.
Regina Walker Paradigm
I am an assistant coach with some experience in debate. I debated in high school, but I have been out of the debate community until the 2018-2019 school year. I primarily prefer a lay debate but I can understand well-explained and topical LARP positions. I will not vote on theory, kritiks, or very dense framework because I will not understand it. I look for clarity in your arguments and clarity in speech. I will award speaker points based on confidence, voice projection, argumentation skills, and poise. Please do not spread in front of me as I will not be able to follow. I can understand slightly faster than conversational but I would prefer conversational. I will vote you down if you are overtly rude or offensive, regardless of how well you debate. If you want to run dense framework and theory, I am not the judge for you. All I ask is that you uphold the integrity of a traditional LD round and be respectful.v