Looking for clean extensions - go down the flow and be explicit about this. If your opponent dropped an argument, state that. I will follow the flow precisely and won't make links or draw conclusions if clear extensions/drops are not made by the debaters. Your stance should remain clear and consistent. Contradictory and unsound claims will not be taken lightly. Speed is fine as long as coherency is not an issue - if I can't understand, I can't count an argument in your favor. Line by line is preferred. I'll buy anything as long as it's relevant, you have solid links, and all claims are warranted. Please remain civil and respectful, that is a must.

I did classic debate for four years when I was in high school and am most comfortable with traditional cases. If you are gonna run anything circuit-y, please do not spread and outline your arguments well

Debated with the Minnetonka debate team in classic format primarily. Currently work with Minnetonka, judging and working with Congress team. Have judged enough LD to be comfortable with the format.

I enjoy seeing creativity in the debate and am comfortable with any speed as long as there is clear annunciation. Unclear speaking can only serve against you.

I like traditional, resolution based argumentation, as well as other traditional tactics.

email: jimmy.d.bohn@gmail.com

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

I am a parent lay judge.

Don't go too fast and speak clearly.

General

I know very little about circuit LD, but am open to hearing new arguments if I can comprehend them. I'd appreciate it if you wrote my ballot for me in your 2n/2a.

Philosophy and framework

I am fairly familiar with basic philosophy, but make sure you explain what you are saying because I am not familiar with all the jargon. I'd be interested in hearing more than just structural violence, but make sure you explain philosophy very well.

TL:DR I'll listen to what I can but if I don't understand on it I won't vote on it. Please be clear and explain the ballot story.

Dear All: As you can tell from judging history, I judge LD sparingly if at all over the last few years. My role in the activity is mostly yelling at people to start their rounds. Take your chances with my abilities to follow what is taking place. I don’t have predispositions to vote for anything in particular. My views that “bait theory” incline me to not want to vote for you if that is your primary strategy is still as true now as it was five years ago. Outside of that, I am open to whatever you can do well and justify that is interesting.

Since I am judging more PF these days:
Clear ballot story. I care about evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case constructive, you had better have tagged, cited, and lined down carded evidence to support what you say. If you are looking for evidence in your prep time or in cross ex or I have to wait 5 minutes for you to find something before prep time even starts, you are debating from behind and your speaks will reflect your lack of preparation.

CX: Don't talk over each other. They ask a question, you ask a question. Bullies are bullies. I don't like bullies.
If it wasn't in the summary, it doesn't become offense in the Final Focus. Sign-post well. Have a ballot story in mind.

I hate generic link stories that culminate in lives and poverty. The link level matters a lot more to me than the impact level. Develop your link level better. High Probability/Low Magnitude impacts > Low Probability High Magnitude impacts.

Don't be a baby. If you and your coaches are trying to get cheap wins by bullying people with Ks and Theory and hand-me-down shells from your teams former policy back files, go to policy camp and learn how to become a policy debater. Disclosure is for plan texts. If you are running a plan, disclose it on the wiki. If you are not, no need to disclose. Disclosure privileges resource-rich debate programs with a team of people to prep your kids out.

I am a third year parent judge. I have judged at a local and national level, mostly in Novice. I will flow and keep track of arguments and vote for the best arguments. I prefer a conversational speed and it is your responsibility to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If you are speaking too fast, I will ask you to slow down. I prefer quality over quantity.

I expect people to be respectful and I do not appreciate bully tactics during rounds. I consider constant interruptions to be rude. I love well-constructed arguments with well-supported evidence; I prefer to evaluate arguments based on the specific resolution and value/criterion.

I love judging. Have fun and be yourself!

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

I have been regularly judging for four years now, including local and national tournaments. I am pretty familiarized with judging about now. That said, I do have some preferences. I am a traditional judge by all metrics. I think real persuasion is a lost art in terms of debate because most debates devolve to who dropped what on the flow, instead of actually clashing with their opponents. I need you to really explain why their contention doesn't matter, not just say [x] argument takes it out, but why it does. Also, I want to see people really explain why their argument is true, not just say it was conceded. I am a stickler for warrants. Paint my ballot for me, even if it requires a format to do so. If you're aff, explain there is [x] problem. Policy [y] solves this problem because [z]. [x] outweighs [b] arguments b/c [c]. Super simple. Explain what problem is occurring, why your policy solves that, and why that problem outweighs your opponents arguments. That gives me clear weighing for why your arguments matter most. Additionally, if you win framework, you have to paint what that means for the round. "Judge, on the framework debate, [x] is the highest value in the round. If I have won this, that means that the only arguments that matter are ones that are promoting [x]. This means you can disregard [y] arguments from my opponent because they don't promote [x]." Similarly for the value criterion. The important thing to make of this is that if I don't know why voting for you is key to solving your problem or why your problem will happen without your policy then I probably will not vote for you. On neg, if I don't know why the policy will cause what you say it will cause, I will not evaluate it. Don't say they conceded it causes corruption. Explain how it causes corruption and why that matters more than the affirmative's contention.

If the above paragraph was not already clear, is weigh weigh weigh. Why does your contention matter more than your opponent's? If I don't know, my chances of voting for you are much lower.

I'll just post some things I think you will find relevant:

- Truth > Tech. That doesn't mean I won't give more weigh to something if it was conceded. But I still want you explaining your arguments in the context of the round more.

- Don't spread. It's a good life skill to be able to persuade a lay person to agree with your case, both for business, debate, and life.

- I would like the affirmative to affirm the resolution and the negative to negate it

- I find util by far the most persuasive but I can be convinced by frameworks like libertarianism if explained well. Main this is I want the debate primarily about the resolution.

- I am fine with counter plans but again 1) warrants still apply how does the counterplan solve better than the aff and 2) don't just say no reason to vote aff because the counterplan solves. Weigh it in terms of your offense. "Because the counterplan solves the affirmative's main advantage of representation, you should vote negative off of risk of offense because there is no unique offense coming from the affirmative."

- I evaluate the resolution, not the assumptions of the affirmative

I am a parent judge and have judged for the past 4 years at traditional tournaments in North and South Carolina in LD and PF. Do not spread – I cannot flow speed. Avoid excessively dense philosophy. Counterplans, disads, plans etc. are fine. Err against kritiks unless you think you can explain it very well. Do not read non-topical affs, I have essentially no experience with these and likely won’t vote on them. Good evidence and clear explanation are key.

email: zip.edwards@offitkurman.com

RESPECTFUL discourse during rounds is expected.

For LD rounds: Prefer to have the LD elements (Values, Criterion, Contentions, etc.) organized and clearly stated in the round.

For all events: Spreading is HIGHLY frowned upon. Concept cluster-bombing as fast as you can is a skill, but not an effective one for debate. Present the case well and decisions related to the resolution will be definitive, please do not continually state how I should vote. Make sure you practice your timing - speed is only good if you speak clearly and persuasively. If you have to take a deep breath after every sentence, you are most likely speaking too fast.

Please keep off time road maps to a minimum. If constructive and evidence is on the computer - make sure you have it in a font that you can actually refer to and present effectively.

HAVE FUN!

Updated 11/23/19 for Glenbrooks

Add me to the email chain if you have one (I have no preference if there is one): wgolay30@gmail.com

Prefs Cheat Sheet

Tricks/Framework/Theory: 1

K/LARP: 4

First, a little bit about me: I debated for four years at WDM Valley. Since then, I've been out of debate for about two years, and am currently a student at the University of Iowa. In order to refresh my memory, I read through a whole bunch of judge paradigms, and they were extremely tilting. As I reflect on my experience as a debater I realize how much it is a competitive activity than it is educational, but take that as you like. Generally I like to think I'm a tabula rasa judge, but the rest of my paradigm may have you thinking otherwise. I'm also mostly tech over truth.

Framework: I enjoy a good framework debate. It is almost guaranteed that there will be preclusion arguments on this layer of the flow so please weigh, I don't like having to a lot of work to resolve a framework debate.

Theory/T: This is one of my favorite aspects of debate. However, don't force the shell just because you think I'll like it. Weird voters that aren't fairness/education are always fun to listen to. Theory spikes are fun.

Ks/Non-Topical Stuff/Performance: I am generally familiar with Ks but not so much with non-topical affs. I really don't know the lit and am not a fan of the style since I find the commoditization argument pretty convincing, however, I'm willing to listen. If your K is about a potentially sensitive topic please include a trigger warning before the round starts. Not a fan of performance either.

Plans/CPs/PICs/DAs: Whatever, I'll vote on it.

Tricks: NIBs, spikes, etc are all fine, I'm willing to vote on just about anything. These are some of my favorite arguments, I was definitely a tricks debater when I was competing.

Defaults: These are all things I refer back to if there's no arguments on the flow about them, obviously I can be convinced one way or the other based on the round, these are just defaults. I presume neg if there's no risk of offense on either side and if no one makes presumption arguments. Role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater unless told otherwise (I don't view my role as an educator, I view it nothing more than me deciding a debate round, unless you tell me otherwise). T/Theory is drop the debater, RVIs don't exist, both operate under competing interpretations. The layers of the debate go meta-theory > theory > Ks/framework > substance. Remember these are just defaults that I prefer, but obviously can be argued out of, I don't feel strongly about any of these topics.

Misc: Flex prep is fine as long as your opponent is okay with it. Spreading is good, I'll say clear/slow twice. Flashing is fine, but if they don't want to then just read over their shoulder or something, I strongly dislike flashing/email drama. I'm also not interested in charging you 10 seconds of prep for the time it takes to compile your documents unless you show complete technical incompetence. I won't call for anything unless I think I misflowed something/misunderstanding an argument or there's arguments flying about the text of something (interp, card date, etc). I don't like evidence ethics, see Conal's retired paradigm. I'm not afraid of a postround so don't worry about your speaks, but I might dislike you afterwards. I don't like being responsible for timings, you should hold your opponent accountable.

Paradigm

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Westview RS, Cypress Falls RK, Granada Hills AS, Houston Memorial DX and SC

Email: danielrosenh@gmail.com please add me to the chain lol I can’t flow

Hi y’all! My name is Daniel Harris (he/his) and I debated for Walt Whitman HS in Maryland for 4 years. I got 4 bids in my career, qualifying to the TOC both my junior and senior years, and clearing my junior year. I am now a second-year undergraduate student at the University of Chicago.

COVID/Valley + Yale Update:

I did not judge Varsity at all last year, so my only exposure to circuit debate was sitting in on my students' rounds. This means that I am not your go-to tech judge, and you should not expect me to be so. Additionally, I am increasingly finicky about debate's asinine norms, so I'm not as tab as my paradigm below suggests.

If I'm judging an online round, I need you to take me very seriously when I tell you that I need you to be far slower, and far clearer than you typically are. I always struggled to comprehend spreading, and this only exacerbates the problem. If you're unhappy with my decision and try to press me, I will have absolutely no qualms in telling you I simply could not flow the round. Obviously if there's technical failings, that is not your problem. But if I can't understand you (and I will let you know when this happens) then I simply will not be able to evaluate the arguments I didn't catch.

Long Version

In my four years of LD, I drifted into various areas, but ultimately settled in a combination of critical theory and philosophy. This doesn’t mean that’s what you need to read, however; I debated every style of LD and found all of it to be fantastic.

Ks <3

This is probably where I’ve seen the most impressive debating and coolest literature. The most rewarding rounds I ever had were in depth debates over different areas of critical theory. I debated high level rounds reading Lacan, Queer theory, CRS (primarily applications of Lacan to Latino race theory), Deleuze, Capitalism, Structuralism vs. Poststructuralism, critical IR, and more. I’m also extremely familiar with Afropessimism and other areas of antiblackness literature, (dis)ableism, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Butler, and more. If you don’t see your spicy new kritik on this list, PLEASE don’t swap it out for something else. If you know your arguments and explain them to me, I will be so happy that I learned in 45 minutes a brand new area of literature and your speaks will reflect that.

In terms of how I’d like to see you debate the K, I don’t have strong preferences. I approached it from a very technical line-by-line approach, because that’s how I was trained by my coaches and teammates. I love watching 1ARs/2NRs give overviews that frame the entire debate and then proceed to answer crucial portions, so I’m happy to follow that.

- Please tell me what the alternative is, especially if its grounded in abstract theory. It’s all good if the 1NC forwards the conceptual foundations of the alternative, but then the 2N needs to tell me what this means, what it looks like, how it resolves the links, and perhaps why it solves the broader structures the affirmative discusses.

- Specific link analysis will help me cast a negative ballot. You can either do this before you read the 1NC link evidence, or you can just quote lines on the aff.

- 1NC should also provide plenty of interaction with the affirmative. When I was going one off against a K aff, I would just tell the panel to get a second sheet and read through 4-5 cards/analytics that weighed the K against the aff and also generated new specific links. Your work can be on the aff, but I want to see a robust comparison.

- I’m hip to floating PIKs, VTL, epistemology, can’t weigh case, and all the K tricks. Press the 1AR.

- If your opponent (no matter their level of skill or experience) is asking you questions about the thesis of the K, you better be educating the whole room. I don’t accept debaters who keep their positions intentionally vague; that’s the fast route to making me very unhappy.

- IF YOUR AUTHORS DO NOT JUSTIFY ONTOLOGICAL THEORIES OF THE SUBJECT, DON’T PRETEND THEY DO. I’m sick of people watching antiblackness debaters win and thinking they can just use the same words to win a round without doing the work.

- If you’re answering the K, you can read a lot of my previous advice and turn it around: explanation, comparison, clever analysis, etc. I want to see a fleshed-out justification for the perm. I find that oftentimes more than one permutation is simply a waste of time because the underlying warrant does not change. Obviously, this isn’t to say you can’t make more than one, but I’d rather see a good detailed analysis than 40 breathless one-liners.

- If it’s an aff, I’m looking forward to seeing you set the terms of the debate! Just make sure I understand what you want me to be doing with my ballot and what I’m endorsing when I vote aff.

Framework

I’ve read plenty of philosophy. I understand that everyone finds passion in different philosophies. I’d really rather you not just pull out some random framework file you have because I’m judging you. If you don’t understand it, I’ll know. I’m familiar with all the basics like Kant, Util, Virtue, Scanlon, Butler, Existentialism, Structural Violence, and what have you.

- If the standard text isn’t extremely generic, please include a one sentence explanation of what it means.

- I can evaluate long syllogisms or stacked frameworks. I always thought reasons to prefer were strategic, but you need to implicate them. Why does it matter if your framework is actor-specific or more binding?

- If your opponent argues your framework justifies an atrocity and you have no response, the implication is not that we need to reconsider what we consider to be an atrocity, but that your framework is wrong. Tell me why their framework is worse, your framework doesn’t justify it, we don’t know what would actually happen in that scenario, or anything else to put ink on the argument.

- If you’re going to get in the weeds on framework comparison, you can often clear up the debate and save some time simply by providing a decent overview that explains the core reasons your framework is best, and then applying that to the line by line or making independent arguments on the line by line. I dislike when you rearticulate the same argument over and over again on different layers of the flow.

- Winning a reason your framework is true does not definitively end the debate. I need SPECIFIC WEIGHING in the context of their arguments and reasons your reason for your framework outweighs other arguments. I always had written out an extension of each reason to prefer with two reasons that one outweighed all other justifications in the debate.

- If you’re reading a ~sketchy~ framework, please be clear and upfront about what it means and implicates. Just tell me if it’s a side constraint. Debate.

T/Theory

If the debate comes down to theory, the likelihood that my RFD is bad skyrockets.

I CAN’T REALLY FLOW WELL CAN’T REALLY FLOW WELL I CAN’T REALLY FLOW WELL so don’t expect my RFD to be referring to subpoint B of the ninth argument on the second 1AR shell for why functional limits turns jurisdictional claims. Treat me like a judge who’s been out of the activity for a while (which at this point, I have). I don’t feel like going through the billion things I could talk about here so I’ll leave a few miscellaneous thoughts but generally, you should expect me not to “default” to anything unless there’s a clearly shared, but unstated, assumption between both debaters as to how I should be evaluating something. Regardless, don’t put me in that position at all.

- I’m not going to hold you to hyper technical extensions. If you never explicitly reference the interpretation and violation, it doesn’t matter unless your opponent made it relevant.

- Go off with terrible responses to terrible shells. More generally, I’m here for silly strategies in responding to T/theory.

- I won’t intervene because I think your shell is terrible, so don’t panic if I seem to be not enjoying the debate; it will not affect my decision.

- I’m sure that all y’all theory debaters are shocked I don’t have thirty more bullet points but I don’t have energy to think through what I should be saying here, so just email me or ask questions before the round.

- OH and please don’t forget to weigh everyone says this and then no one does but at the end of the day it’s y’all who suffer from my incoherent RFD if there’s no weighing.

Tricks

Refer to the first sentence of my theory section, and apply it to this.

I am only receptive to tricks because I read them a bit my junior and sophomore years. If you want to read tricks because you think I will give you better speaks, don’t. I’ll vote on the arguments, but I won’t be laughing with you when you end the debate by extending a single sentence.

- If you insert random tricks into a paragraph to intentionally make minesweeping harder, I will take whatever speaker points I would have given you, and reduce it by .5

- Make sure I understand the implication of arguments. It’s fine if you don’t explain it fully until you’re extending it, but don’t expect me to look at your 2 page logical proof and understand it justifies a ballot.

- Trivialism is objectively false.

- Trivialism is objectively true.

- You should consider before the round whether your reading of an argument will create an unsafe space. Against a util aff with an extinction impact? No sweat. Against an aff discussing deeply painful topics which required immense emotional labor from your opponent? Think again. If you are unsure of the appropriateness of reading your arguments, you can a) not read the arguments in this round, or, if you insist on reading it, b) tread lightly and be respectful.

- The more upfront you are, the happier I will be. My ideal tricks 1NC contains truth testing, and then clearly numbered nibs each of which explicitly negated. I find this to be morally ambiguous, so you risk lower speaks if you are substantially less honest in your round.

LARP

I rarely LARPed, but I also like knowing what’s happening in the world so I tend to be reasonably well informed. I trust y’all to do your thing. The only really important thing is that you explain important jargon to me. For example, I did not know the difference between textual and functional competition until TOC my junior year. Otherwise, feel free to educate me and stuff. It’s very possible I won’t be at all familiar with the topic literature so try to take it a little easy on me until you’ve explained everything clearly. Also, I will judge kick if the circumstances present.

Miscellaneous:

- In terms of late weighing, I’m usually a little more lenient on the 2NR than other judges. The 1AR is totally allowed to doorshut and say the 2NR can’t weigh, but absent arguments either way, I will evaluate most 2NR arguments that aren’t an entirely new layer of the debate (which is not to say I won’t evaluate 2NR shells). For 2AR weighing, there has to be clearly new weighing in the 2NR, but I’ll never affirm off the 2AR doing new weighing that the 2N couldn’t have preempted.

- From Nick Eikelbrener (Eikelberner but the paradigm has it mispelled): "If you begin the AC with “Welcome to Trump’s America” I expect you to say “Welcome back to Trump’s America” and “Welcome once again to Trump’s America” in the subsequent speeches to avoid confusion on where we are." This is very important.

- I have been cursed out once in a debate round. I won’t tolerate seeing it again.

- I am happy to answer questions, but if your seven coaches come in to yell at me just for the sake of a good grilling, I will leave.

- You can do it!

Little Rock Central High School

Please include me on the email chain: Courtney.Hornsby@lrsd.org

I most frequently judge congressional debate and Lincoln Douglas.

For policy—I default to comparative advantage. Write my ballot for me. I flow thoroughly, and speed is fine, but I will let you know about clarity.

For LD: I can judge most styles; do what you do best but make sure you thoroughly explain your arguments. Blippy theory arguments, tricks, and frivolous arguments are things I’m not inclined to vote on. I prefer substance and rarely vote on things I don’t understand.. Speed is fine but clarity is more important. Above all, debate is a communicative activity so judge instruction is key.

Debated Policy and LD at ETHS from 2015-2019

Currently debating policy at Northwestern

My email is owenjanssen2023@u.northwestern.edu. Add me to the email chain.

Policy:

Most of my experience in HS was in queerness/pomo debating. In college though I’ve mostly been debating policy. I’m not the best for clash debates so don’t pref me super high if you’re super techy. I’m a computer science major which means I tend to have a positive view of tech but I’m totally down to vote for stuff like dedev or Ks of technology.

For policy args you can do what you want as long as you don’t say anything offensive.

K vs. Policy: I think the most important part of these debates are the perm and alt debates. I think the neg has to have a clear articulation of what the alt does. The vaguer the alt the more likely I am to vote for the perm. If you don’t give a clear articulation of the alt or don’t go for it you should explain why the alt doesn’t matter. Saying perm do both is never gonna be enough to win the ballot. You have to give a clear articulation of what the perm looks like and how it is implicated in the link debate. I think I have a lower threshold for links than most judges but you should still spend a decent chunk of the 2NR giving a clear link story.

FW vs. K affs: I’m pretty neutral when it comes to this debate. I think the most important thing is that both sides lay out a clear vision of what debate looks like under their model. I don’t think fairness is a terminal impact in itself. I think the aff needs to clearly explain the role of the negative and the role of the ballot in their model of debate. If you’re gonna argue why debate is racist or problematic don’t just assert that debaters of color can’t engage in policy debate. If your model of debate doesn’t take into account black policy debaters then I’m much more willing to vote neg. I think a strong articulation of why the TVA and switch side debate solve are key to winning the round.

K vs. K: I think the perm into the K is very strong and the neg needs a good reason that either the aff doesn’t get a perm or why the perm doesn’t overcome the links. I generally have a hard time believing that my ballot will do literally anything in terms of the larger context of debate. I’m not super well versed in critical race theory so make sure the debate doesn’t get too abstract.

Do whatever you want in CX. I don’t really care if you’re an asshole, just if you are be funny and don’t be too excessive.

Also don’t burn anything or do anything in round that could get me fired.

LD:
If you’re a tricks debater don’t pref me.

Besides for that, I’m fine to judge whatever. Just do you. Most of the stuff I said about policy also applies to LD. I don’t enjoy judging value/value criterion debate but you do you.

PF PARADIGM:

Head Coach at George Washington in Denver

I have watched many rounds on the topic and am very familiar with the literature base.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes. I am most happy when you guide my pen to the flow and tell me exactly where to write and what to write!

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments. This does not mean opponents can just say they are improbable and move on, work must still be done to explain why the arguments are flawed, but if it is close and the arguments have been discredited with evidence and analysis, I will err on the side of "truth".

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

Views on Theory: Not a fan of it in PF. Run at your own risk.

Kritiks: See theory above

Views on Spreading: Do not spread! Reading quickly is not the same as a full out spread.

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF or link and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Pet Peeves

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Avoid calling me "judge".

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

Email chain: parentjudge@gmail.com

Hi, I’m Colleen. I am the parent of a policy debater and a speech kid and have a deep respect for the work you put into this activity. I have had some experience judging, and I want you to debate the way that makes you most comfortable. Be clear and conversational and remember to WEIGH THE IMPORTANCE of the arguments you make. Without this crucial step, I will be forced to make that determination on my own and it may not go your way. I allocate speaker points as follows: 30 = Outstanding/Enlightening, 28 - 29 = Excellent, 27 – 28 = Good, 26 and under = You have done something unfair, unethical, etc.

Alec Loftus alecloftus63@gmail.com - I for sure wanna be in the email chain

LSHS '18

Loyola University Chicago '22

While in high school, I primarily ran traditional arguments. Being from Minnesota, that was the norm there. However, having competed on the circuit at many tournaments, I'm not oblivious to the value of T, Kritiks, Theory, CPs, and the like.

My one request is that when running these offs that you speak a bit more clearer than you would otherwise (or think you need to otherwise). It's been a couple of months since I've been on the scene and I definitely know my affinity for understanding where the off is impacting has deteriorated a bit.

The most important thing to me in round is respect. Next is quality of impacts. If I cannot tell where an impact is specifically coming from and how it matters in the round then I am automatically going to weigh it less heavily in the round.

On a lighter note, this tournament can be kinda serious so any attempt at keeping it light, fun, friendly, or positive will get you some brownie speaker points.

Tl;dr- be friendly and have fun. I ran and heard mostly traditional, but am in tune to progressive debate. So, as the kiddos say, "go off I guess" if you want to and find it will add to the round.

I am Debate coach as well as a High School Social Studies teacher.

If you spread (i.e. speak very quickly), I will vote against you, no matter how convincing your arguments. The purpose of debating is to prepare students with speaking skills that will be useful in their adult lives. This is not speed chess.

I also find the use of debate lingo unconvincing. No presidential candidate ever referred to "cards" instead of the actual facts; nor did one ever talk about "extending the flow." Speak the substance of your argument; don't use code.

Public Forum:

I don't have a ton of specific preferences, but just a couple things to keep in mind...

1.) Generally speaking, I will do very little work for you. I overall tend to judge with a "tech over truth" style, meaning that I'm not going to spend a lot of time deeply considering the arguments myself, but rather I'll buy whatever you tell me to buy, as long as it is well supported and shows up on the flow. This also means that it is very unlikely I'll call any cards, so if you think one of your opponents' arguments is fishy, you need to explain why during your speeches, and tell me to call it at the end of the round if necessary. If I absolutely need to do my own work to decide who wins an argument/the round, I will. This may work out for you, so if you like 50% odds, then feel free to not interact with opponents's arguments. But, I'd prefer we avoid that situation, and you give me clear voters.

2.) If you want me to weigh arguments at the end of the round, you need to cleanly extend it through every speech. First-speaking team does not need to extend their own case in rebuttal... Second-speaking team should address the first-speaking team's rebuttal during their own rebuttal. If you want me to weigh something from rebuttal/case, I need to hear it in summary and final focus. If something gets said in rebuttal, dropped in summary, and then brought back up in final focus, I will not weigh it... if your opponent calls it out. So, definitely address the flow during your speeches and tell me if your opponents dropped something. If they did, chances are I won't weigh it.

3.) I debated PF for four years, and I currently coach it, so I understand all the lingo and I'm cool with speed. However, like most judges, just keep in mind that if I can't understand something, I can't write it down.

4.) Kritiks, topicality arguments, general progressive stuff, etc... I personally don't believe that PF is the place for that kind of stuff. However... if you can provide me with really solid reasoning as to why your progressive framework is the objectively best way to analyze the round (not just the best way for your side to win / throw your opponents off) I'll consider it. Maybe.

5.) Always be respectful to your opponents. Aggression/intensity is fine, disrespectfulness is not.

6.) If you can somehow fit in a relevant, appropriate reference to the music genre known as Yacht Rock in any of your speeches, you will gain my unending respect and some extra speaker points.

7.) I just want to see good, clean rounds. Have fun, and debate like you want to win.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round. Best of luck!

Lincoln Douglas:

I debated Public Forum for 4 years, and I now coach it. If you haven't already struck me, congratulations! You found a traditional judge.

As I should say maybe less sassily, I have never been trained in, nor do I understand how to judge progressive LD debate. I don't want to come off as though I'm disrespecting the progressive style as a form of debate, because I'm not at all. However, if that's how you like to debate, I'm not the judge for you.

I'm not saying that I don't allow any progressive stuff whatsoever, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1.) I don't do spreading, at all. Speed is perfectly fine, but what I can't understand, I won't put down on the flow. I don't want to be flashed your case, nor do I think it's a good sign for you if you need to do so to your opponents.

2.) Ks, Ts, Theory, etc: If your argument is very well explained, and you provide me extremely convincing rationale as to why your way of framing the debate is preferable, I might consider it. However, keep in mind that I don't have the same base-level of understanding of these arguments that many progressive judges have. These arguments are something you need to be really careful with for me. If one debater's entire case is framework, the other debater's first rebuttal could consist solely of "they didn't debate the topic, so I win the round," and at that point the round would pretty much be over for me. In fact, if your opponent's case is entirely ridiculous framework, or they spread, I (dead serious) give you my 100% permission to use the term "Bruh Moment" in any of your speeches.

So, am I disallowing progressive framework? Absolutely not. I think that certain arguments are genuinely important for the state of the activity, etc. However, even if your framework is perfectly run, I will always prefer the debater who debates the topic.

3.) If you want me to weigh an argument in the round, it needs to be extended all the way across the flow.

4.) Classic rock references will boost your speaks

5.) Once again, because this is very important, if you are a progressive debater, strike me. I'm not saying that because I don't like you, or because I disrespect your style of debate, but because I want you to have a fair shot at succeeding here, and I won't be able to give that to you as a judge.

tl;dr... Just debate the topic.

Good luck! Especially to me...

Policy:

I actually just had a thing come up, so I'm not gonna be able to judge this round. Sorry guys.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Email chain: k.merchant786@gmail.com

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign ‘20

Background: I actually went to Glenbrook South High school and did policy my freshman year, then did LD for 3 years. I’ve also been judging at the Glenbrooks for a couple of years now.

Speed: Just be CLEAR. No insane spreading please, but if you are communicative and clear go for it.

Speaks: I will award speaks based on the arguments made as well as appropriate debate etiquette.

Tricks/Spikes: Not a huge fan

Theory: Prefer substantive theory. Don’t just call abuse on everything.

Conceded and dropped arguments will obviously not flow through.

Love impact calc, voting issues, role of the ballot: Tell me how to vote.

Das/CPS: Perfectly fine.

Poor/bad K debates are not my favorite and no long K overviews. Clear explanations of how your K works and functions!

Framework debate: Make it quick! Explain any phil args it will only help you if you end up spending time on fw debate

Prep time ends with email is sent/flash drive is out!

TLDR: I'm a first year out who was a former LD/PF Debater. Treat me as a tech judge who doesn't like spreading, theory, bs, or nontopical arguments.

About Me:

Sophomore at Northwestern studying Econ, Business, and Art

Debated for Hawken School in Ohio (4 years LD, 1 year PF)

Top 4 in LD in Ohio, dabbled in nat circuit LD, prefers traditional style

Made it to bid round in VPF at Stanford and Yale with my LD co-captain Ally Sewell.

LD Judging Preferences:

Don't spread, fast conversational speed is fine

Don't run phil you don't understand or trivial/bs arguments that are barely topical

Don't shift your advocacy mid-round

CX is binding, I will listen to it

Do link all offense to your FW

Weigh enough so that I can make a decision. Just give me some common sense weighing.

You can be dominant in round, but don't be rude. I don't mind if you cut someone off once or twice, but doing it repeatedly to misconstrue your opponent's arguments is not okay. Debaters being rude/condescending/misogynistic/racist will result in lower speaks to say the least.

All evidence should be mentioned with either author name or publication name, in case or in rebuttal. I expected the evidence to be at least in card form, PDF of original source would be better.

No theory, no spikes in the AC, no T, no untopical Ks, just have a good substantive traditional round. You can run theory if you're opponent is abusive I suppose, but don't bank on it to win the round.

1AR is the hardest speech, so do that well, you'll get high speaks.

PF Judging Preferences:

Same as LD judging preferences whenever applicable. Additional Notes:

I don't like the whole "my partner will address it later" as a way to dodge questions

PF is PF, don't run anything other than a proper substantive case, I default to util framework but if u want to run something go for it, I think it's dumb to have any debate outside of a util framework for PF but whatever

If u run Ks, Ts, Theory, spread or anything that is not intended for a general public forum, I will drop your speaks to say the least.

andrea.peterson-longmore@neenah.k12.wi.us thats my email before you ask.

I have sections below specific to each category, so just scroll and look for the bolded section you are interested in.

Experience: I am currently the head coach for Neenah high school Speech & Debate (but currently only assisting in LD/PF... if that makes sense? I do all the other things) and have been a coach for the last 6 years. I have students who compete locally as well as nationally- we had the national champion at NSDA in Congress, and a Quarterfinalist in LD, a national competitor in Speech, middle school nats nationa runner up....so I have judged all over the place. This is my ninth year as a judge ('22-'23). I judge all categories, except varsity policy. I was not a debater in school, so I have a more basic understanding of the more obscure things that go on in debate.

"I have 5 minutes and wanted to check your paradigm quick, whats the headlines?"

*******Update for Yale- I broke my dominant hand, and can't write. I take short notes by typing, but be as clear as you can about your points since I have to do this from memory =(

Congress is my JAM. I love it and I prefer to see that level of enthusiasm/preparation from the participants.

I wasn't a debater- explain things clearly or I drop arguments I don't understand. ***note on that- I understand the terms of debate (link, turn, impact, etc), just not more niche philosophies and less popular arguments***

Be nice to each other- respect will get you far with me

Impact calc and weighing of final arguments is the best strat with me

Don't argue with me in RFD. If I drop you and you think you should have won, explain it better next time.

I can handle spreading, but if you can't... don't. It's awkward to have to tell you that you don't make sense.

Use a timer, and stick to it- I hate it when kids go over time. I stop flowing within 5 seconds of the end of your time. I will not warn you about this- you know your time limits.

Okay, I love these little things I have seen on other paradigms, so hopefully this helps.

For your pref sheets: (1 being top pref, just to be clear)

K's 1<-------------------------------X------>5 (I like them, but I feel like I am not a good judge for them)

Policy – 1<----X--------------------------------->5 /strike

Phil – 1<-------------------X------------------>5

T/Theory- 1<-------------------------------X------>5

Tricks – 1<-------------------------------------X>5 Actually... X. <== I HATE them. Please don't run them.

Trad – 1<--X----------------------------------->5

See below for more in-depth explanations divided by category

Congress

Behavior: You are acting as a member of congress- keep that in mind in how you behave! Please make sure to respect the rules of your parli and PO. For the love all that is good, please pay attention to the round. This is far more fun when everyone participates! If I see you on your phone for more than a minute at a time I will be annoyed. Obviously you can answer a text or check the time quick, but if you are disengaged I will notice and I will not be happy.

Speeches: I LOVE *actually* extemporaneous speeches. Please breathe some life into your words- you are trying to make your fellow congresspeople vote for or against the bill! Make sure you include stats, citations, and some analysis of other speaker's points. I believe that if legislation is up for debate, there is current research to be read about it, thus I expect you are only using sources from AT MOST the last 5 years. Better if they are from the last 3. A good, weird AGD is fun. Please avoid the common Taylor Swift/Disney/over used quote choices though. Bonus if you can make me a crack a smile with it! (not really a "bonus," but I remember them when I am doing my rankings- which helps your placement)

PO's: Have a CLEAR sheet for people to follow, keep it updated. If you make a mistake, fix it and move on quickly. LEARN your chamber's names. It is so awkward to hear POs continually mess up the names in the chamber. If you need it, but a phonetic pronunciation spot in your sheet and ask them to put their name in that way for you. I tend to rank PO's high, as long as they are engaged and well versed in the congress rules, (or at least learning them!) if they are not engaged and EFFICIENT, they can expect a low ranking. I can't stand it when a PO says a whole 30 second thing after every speech and questioning block.

Questioning: Ask short, clear questions. Don't have a ton of lead up. I don't mind if you need to argue with each other a bit, but keep it civil and don't cut each other off unless its clear they are wasting your time or are not answering the question. It drives me insane to have a silent room for questions and no opposition to a bill, please ask lots of questions! It plays into my ranking- great speeches will only get you so far with me! If you don't ask any questions in a bill cycle, don't expect a rank of over 6 from me. This hold true even if you didn't speak on the bill. It doesn't require research to think critically and ask thoughtful questions.

Recesses: Keep them short. Do not ask for more than 5 minutes between bills- I am not willing to extend the end of the session to accommodate the chamber wasting time during the session.

Overall Preferences: I can't stand it when kids want to break cycle to just give a speech. I realize this isn't your fault, but that means the debate is stale and we need to move on. Unless you are giving a whole new perspective on the bill, you are far better off moving on to a new bill and giving a speech there. I am especially critical of these speeches in terms of quality of content and sources, because if you are insisting we listen to your extra speech, it must be REALLY good and worth not moving on.

Public Forum

Preferences: Please be clear and professional in round. I hate that the attitudes and behaviors seen in other styles is seeping into PF. As noted in other sections, I was not a debater, so don't expect me to know every single term you share. Generally, if I make a somewhat confused face, define your term.

A few things I love to see: Please, collapse arguments. It's so awesome to watch a veteran team (or even a novice team) weigh arguments and determine the largest impacts and points in the round and weigh them against each other, rather than slowly increase their speed in through the debate to try and get every single argument in to the last speech. Spreading has no place in PF- stop trying to make it happen, its not going to happen.

A few things I hate in rounds: Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. If you want cards, fine... but ask for them all at once and get it over with quickly. It is super annoying to go through CX and then have a 15 minute "card trade" before getting back into debate.

Lincoln Douglas

Preferences: This is what the majority of my students do. I will flow everything and I will say clear if necessary, but only once before I stop flowing you. I was not a debater, so my knowledge of really weird arguments is lacking. Let me say that again. I WAS NOT A DEBATER- EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN. It has become more and more common to use really dense philosophies in your framing- this is something I have little experience with. Make sure to explain your super specialized philosophy carefully or I can't use it as a weighing mechanism. I encourage you to run whatever you like, but explain it very well, especially if it is not something common. Err on the side of caution if you are not sure if it is common- like I said I am not well versed in most of the different arguments. In terms of speed I judge a lot of policy, so I would say I am comfortable with most speeds seen in LD.

A few things I love to see in round: Please weigh & tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be. Signpost clearly- I love hearing you tell me exactly what the "uniqueness" is, the "link" and the "impact. It makes it much easier for me to organize my flow. If you have nearly identical frames, I love to see kids recognize that and show how they can fit into each other's frame, rather than making the round about whether I should weigh using "limiting suffering" or "increasing societal welfare." Let's be honest, those are pretty similar, and if you fit in one you probably can fit in the other.

A few things I hate in rounds: Swearing- This seems like an obvious one, but is lacks professionalism if it is not needed to actually make the points. "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, don't make me sit for 35 seconds and then tell me you're taking prep. Veteran debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced. Last thing: if you run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent and then you have a case against your opponent, expect me to completely drop your fairness argument. You just proved that you lied about the fairness since you prepped that argument. Use your time to prepare blocks and responses instead of wasteful and lazy theory shells.

Policy

Preferences: I do not like any tricks or unprofessional behavior in round, but snark is always okay. I prefer not to hear teams talking to each other while their opponents are presenting, as it is distracting to me as a judge. Open speeches are a no-go. If you don't have your own stuff ready, then take prep time. If you're out of prep time, organize yourself better next time. I generally only judge novice policy once in a while, so be aware you might be my only round this year, and I probably don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area.

I am fine with spreading, (probably a 6/10 for speed) however if you are not understandable, I will only tell you clear once before I stop flowing you. Please be aware of your own speaking issues- for example, if you have braces and rubber bands, you probably should not spread, since you will be almost unintelligible. On the topic of spreading- I understand it is a strategy to get as many arguments in as possible, but be aware that a large breadth of arguments you do not understand is basically useless.

Impact calc is huge for me. If I don't clearly hear you explain why your impacts are bigger or more important, I judge completely by what is on my flow. DA's and CP's are fine in a round, and good experience for a novice/Post nov. I always flow cross x, and keep track of questions asked. I do not want to see a framework in novice policy.

Misc. Stuff for any style debate:

-I am not about speaker points- I think its a really biased system, but I do it because its required. I would not consider myself generous with points, but I try to be fair with the way the system is set up. That said, if you’re mean to your opponent I will substantially dock your speaks. If you can’t control your round without being disrespectful there is something wrong. Since I have been asked, I average about 28 for speaks.

-I don't flow things from CX unless I am told to. I find it to be one of the more telling parts of any round about who has stronger arguments and better understands the content, but if you want it to weigh in to my decision, you need to bring it up in speeches.

-Please understand whatever you’re running before you run it in front of me- it is super frustrating to hear kids hem and haw about defining terms when they didn't take time to understand what they are saying.

-I dislike timing rounds and I've found I'm extremely inaccurate. I will keep time, but it is best if we have multiple timers going to ensure accuracy. Please time yourselves and hold your opponent accountable so that I don't have to. I HATE having to cut people off because they are over time- I actually prefer if their opponent has a timer that goes off so I can hear it.

TLDR: Be respectful, know & define your stuff, use current sources, watch your time.

I am a policy maker judge. Assume that I am the gate keeper to the funds the AFF requires for their plan. This means your arguments should be rooted in reality as much as possible, your plan (as the AFF or counter plan as the NEG) should be pragmatic, and all arguments should tie closely to the round's plan text(s). I am open to state's counter plans, however, they do come with a great burden on the NEG to successfully run (greatly increases the total substantive content of the round) Make sure your brinks, impacts, and links are credible. If all your impacts are nuclear war, extinction, and complete economic collapse, you are probably in a bad place in the round. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, ... and time" More than likely, you don't have enough time in the day to convince me that funding a large infrastructure bill will cause nuclear Armageddon. Please avoid spreading, as I cannot flow fast enough to keep track of your arguments, which comes with the risk of an automatic lose. If you don't think a lay person could understand you, you're speaking too fast.

Additionally, I caution against new in the 2, and certainly won't flow any new arguments presented during rebuttals. Make sure to sign post during your speeches and clearly and verbally link your arguments to your evidence (mention author, source, date, etc). Also know that i will not read your case or evidence if linked (unless there are reasons to suspect fabricated evidence). I cannot read fast enough to get through it all during prep. Your speech and the quality of its delivery will be the only content I judge you on. I strongly prefer on case arguments; critiques and off case framework arguments (unless you're link is solid) are things that i rarely will ever even vote on. I let educational standard of debate guide most of my decision making for judging. So asking your opponent why they don't solve for some even larger issue outside or related to their plan will likely hold little sway over me.

Concerning Fiat power, as soon as the AFF (or neg for states CP) references it, that will end all arguments concerning the passing of the plan. debating the current state of politics is extremely difficult, and often comes down to which party has the number of seats necessary to pass which kind of bill at the time of the debate, which is uninteresting, as it leaves little room for students to argue on the merrits of a plan.

Concerning etiquette, please, refrain from ad hominem, and be respectful of your opponents.

Finally, i prefer analysis, clash, and interpretation to make up the majority of your speeches, rather than the reading of evidence. And all cases and their argument should link directly and easily to the topic.

andrew.phifer.13@gmail.com

I am lazy and stupid. Please treat me as such. Tell me exactly where to flow, how to weigh, and why you won this round. I am a coach, but I am not a former debater. So if you would like to run ks, plans, theory or whatever, you can. However, you need to break it down to a fairly basic level, and they should be used to enhance the debate space, not to limit it. I'm fine with speed as long as you enunciate. If I am not getting what you are saying, I'll make a face like :/

I judge a lot, and I hear the same thing over and over so many times. If you have a non-stock case, I'd love to hear it. Run something weird!

Pet peeve: Making debate an exclusionary space in any way.

email chains to moiraquealy@gmail.com

Name: Moira Quealy

School Affiliation: Barrington High School

Were you previously affiliated with any other school? I student taught at Carl Sandburg in 2017, and I helped out the the PF team while I was there.

Number of years and/or tournaments judging the event you are registered in: I've judged LD since 2017. I tallied it up in Tabroom, and I think I have judged over 200 rounds of LD just at tournaments. I am a weary soul.

Have you judged in other debate events? Please describe if so. I have judged PF from time to time, but it is not my specialty.

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

Speed of delivery preference (slow, conversational, brisk conversational, etc.): I like a quicker pace if you can pull it off without sacrificing clarity. If you are spreading, I need an email chain. If you are at a local tournament, you should probably not be spreading. If you speak quickly as a strategy for confusing your opponent, you should definitely not have time left over in your speech.

How important is the value criterion in making your decision? Generally, I think it is my rubric for the debate. That being said, if your frameworks are similar, I don't feel the need to spend too much time going back and forth. Collapsing and focusing on who fulfills the general fw better is a very fair and time-conscious move.

Do you have any specific expectations for the format of the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal and 2 Negative Rebuttal (i.e. line by line/ direct refutation and/or big picture?)I would say the 2NR should be pretty line-by-line. You have the time. I do not have the same expectation for the 2AR. Voting issues are essential, and I'd rather have those than a line-by-line.

Are voting issues necessary for your decision?I wouldn't count it as an automatic loss if you don't do voting issues (especially as a Novice), but oftentimes voters are where I end up making my decision. Not including them is a detriment to your ballot.

How critical are ”extensions” of arguments into later speeches. This is an essential part of debate. If you aren't doing this, I am not sure what the debate round would consist of.

Flowing/note-takingI flow on my laptop. I may jump to my phone during CX to check in on my team and make sure everyone's rounds are going okay, but I will still listen. If you are running a team case and I have judged your school before, I may just copy and paste the flow over, so don't worry if you don't see me typing during the constructive.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument is reflected in your ballot, style is reflected in your speaks.

In order to win a debate round, does the debater need to win their framework or can they win using their opponent’s framework?You can win under your opponent's framework, but YOU need to make that connection for me.

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (analytical and/or empirical) is in the round? This is an essential part of debate. If you aren't doing this, I am not sure what the debate round would consist of.

Any other relevant information (optional)?I will not flow new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR. It's a waste of your time and mine.

Parent Judge.

Please go slowly and use persuasive arguments. Have good clash and explain your points well.

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

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

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

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

Experience:

I am somewhat new to judging debate. I performed in speech in high school and I am a performer so rhetoric and persuasive appeal does play a big role with me, please show me that you are confident about your case, even if you’re not. That being said, I do want to take the role seriously and I have done what I could to prepare for it in recognition of your hard work in preparation for debate. Of course I don’t need to tell you that good sportsmanship and professionalism are of the utmost importance.

Expectations:

1. Please do not spread. This just loses my attention in your debate and I will just vote for the person from whom I caught the most thoughts/ideas. Help walk me through your arguments and make sure I hear them: evidence and rebuttals. It would be helpful if you sent me your case: saylorw@gosaints.org

2. Avoid progressive arguments unless you are 100% comfortable and prepared to defend them.

3. During rebuttal/final focus be specific with why you think you won and your opponent lost. This really stands out to me.

I prefer a slower debate. It is your burden to make sure your speech is clear and understandable. The faster you speak, the more clearly you must speak. I will be flowing the round so give me time to do so. I will make gestures to slow down if I am having trouble keeping up. Background I was an LD debater in high school 35 years ago. I read multiple news sites every day. I have a college degree in mathematics and can do most math in real-time in my head. In my current job, I am a data analyst and programmer in the upstream oil and gas industry. Philosophy and framework. I will keep a basic flow of the arguments throughout the debate. I will pay attention to arguments that I think are important but will ignore ones that are silly or hard to believe (home schooling --> global warming). CX Please be polite during CX. Poor behavior during CX will cost you speaker points.

Schools judged for: Marquette University High School, Rufus King High School, Ronald Reagan College Prep High School

Did not compete in high school

Style of debate judged: Lincoln Douglas (Often), Public Forum (Often), Novice Policy (3-4 times)

Speaking Speed: Students may go as fast or slow as they would like as long as their points can be easily heard and understood. If a crowd of people would be unable to understand you, you are speaking too fast.

Framework: I like a solid framework and a clear understood framework. Please make sure your value, value criterion, and contentions flow with you debate. I expect to see a value and value criterion in your constructive.

Reading plans, counterplans, or Kritiks are acceptable to debate.

Most important to a win: Strong framework, cross-ex to be able to defend and poke holes in the other debates framework, and strong rebuttal outlining your points.

I am a lay judge and have been judging for two years. My personal interests are politics and current events. If debaters speak so quickly that I cannot understand their arguments, that will affect the weight I give to them.

I am a parent judge who has little experience outside of evaluating traditional rounds. Please do not spread in front of me I will not understand it.

I am a communications teacher (I was never a debater) therefore I focus more on the educational aspect of the debate. Please do not assume that I understand all debate terminology and techniques. I need you to educate and persuade me through organized speeches and clear explanations.

Hello!

I debated at Marlborough School for four years and I now attend UChicago. Please be nice to your opponent. I do not like framing arguments that would indicate that the holocaust or any other atrocity is good. Please explain to me the implications of your arguments and signpost! If you keep speaking after time is up, I will stop flowing. I like a good plan v. cp debate; however, I also like ks, DAs, etc. Whatever you decide to run, please make sure you have clear extensions and weigh the debate for me. If you are emailing cases, please put me on the chain. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

I appreciate strong argumentation as your job in debate is to be able to refute all of your opponents arguments. I love evidence debate so be able to support ALL of your arguments. When you speak be clear and enunciate, if I can't hear or understand you I can't weigh that argument. I don't heavily weigh CX but I do pay attention to it. I also don’t really like Util, so please don’t run it. But overall, be courteous and have fun!

I'm an assistant PF coach at Charlotte Latin and a graduate student at the University of Alabama. My email is dmzell@crimson.ua.edu

Strake RR Paradigm

1. Anything on the ballot must be in final focus, and anything besides weighing in final focus must be in summary.

2. Please weigh. Tell me why your argument justifies a vote for you even if your opponent’s arguments are true.

3. I'm generally sympathetic to the first speaking team. Defense is not necessary in first summary, and new evidence should not be in the second. While you don't have to frontline everything, the second rebuttal needs to answer all offense.

4. If you are going to concede your opponent’s argument, it must be in the speech immediately after it was made.

5. Please be respectful. Avoid overly-aggressive crossfires and rudeness.

6. Evidence ethics matter a great deal to me. I don't care if it’s called for or contested, I will not vote on a miscut card. Lying about evidence is too easy and too common in this activity, and I have decided that intervening is worth it to stop cheating. If a card sounds sketchy to me, I will call for it, and if the card is severely miscut, drop the team. Please know that I understand evidence mixups can happen, as well as the "power tagging effect", where a card gets a bit exaggerated as the round progresses. There's a difference between that and fabricating, clipping, or grossly misrepresenting your evidence. The former might cause me to lower speaks, but the latter will be an L 20.

In General

I am a fan of speed and tech debate, but I'm out of practice--particularly with flowing. Just keep in mind that the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something. If you want to spread, try to reduce the risk of this by slowing down for key parts of arguments/cards and signposting well.

I will listen to pretty much any argument, but I may not know what to do with it. If you're going to make progressive arguments, make sure you're clear on how you want it evaluated and why.

Tech > Truth in the sense that dropped argument are true ones

Truth > Tech in the sense that I'm more than happy to listen to uncarded analysis if it's good.

If neither team has offense at the end of the round, I'll presume for the first speaking team, not neg. The structure of PF makes such an outcome much easier for the second speaking team to avoid.

Lynbrook '18, UChicago '22

Competed in LD for 3 years in high school; judged LD (Holy Cross, Voices, HWL, Stanford) & CX (Bronx, GBX, UNLV) in 2020-2021

Email: yichen.zhu@gmail.com She/Her/Hers

- How you should pref me: LARP (1), Theory (1), Phil (2), K (2/3), High Theory (3)

- Tech > truth generally, but I will not vote for something that is categorically false (racism good, 1+1=3, etc)

- Will not vote on an argument that's dropped if there is no warrant or if I didn't flow it

- Strategy dictates speaks so go for only what is necessary and end early if you can

- Make good arguments, weigh a lot, and give a clear ballot story in your last speech

Specifics:

LARP

Anything is fine, but you will probably lose if your aff doesn't include at least a short util framework.

Phil

I would like to say I have a decent grasp on most analytic phil and would like to hear something interesting (here something interesting ≠ your logical consequence aff with tricks, although I don't mind hearing it).

Ks

Love good Ks but strongly dislike poorly written ones, although I will vote on it if you win. Know your literature. Give concrete examples of what your impact/alt looks like. If you read a ROB/ROJ, explain why it precludes a normal standard. I don't like it when the debate turns into two people claiming opposing things with no real comparison to back it up.

Theory

Enjoy good T/theory debate! I will no longer vote for arguments of the form "Evaluate the round after X speech." Otherwise I will vote on any theory no matter how frivolous, although your speaker points will suffer and I have a lower threshold for responses if your shell is really silly. Justify why competing interps implies I vote on a risk of offense. I will gut check against bad theory if you win reasonability and have some defense on the shell. Paragraph theory is fine, but you should explicitly state things like fairness/education, competing interps/reasonability, and drop the arg/drop the debater. If no arg is made, I default reasonability, drop the arg, no RVIs.