National Speech and Debate Tournament

2022 — Louisville, KY/US

Phillip Irving Paradigm
Lincoln Douglas
Lincoln Douglas Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)

Current LD coach
Former LD competitor
Experienced LD judge
Current Public Forum coach or judge
Community judge

How many years have you judged LD debate?

3

How many LD rounds have you judged this year?

41+

What is your preferred rate of delivery?

6/91 = Slow conversational style
9 = Rapid conversation speed
 

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

N
 

Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?

N

How important is the criterion in making your decision?

It is a major factor in my evaluation
 

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?

Y

Rebuttals and Crystallization

 

Voting issues should be given:

Either is acceptable
 

The use of jargon or technical language ("extend", "cross-apply", "turn", etc.) during rebuttals:

Is acceptable
 

Final rebuttals should include:

Both
 

Voting issues are:

Absolutely necessary

How do you decide the winner of the round?

I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of their position

How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

9/91 = Not necessary
9 = Always necessary

Please describe your personal note-taking during the round

I keep a rigorous flow
Additional remarks: Lincoln Douglas Paradigm + Unless I indicate otherwise, assume I'm always ready. + I competed in LD for 3/4 years, and this is the event I have the most love for. I performed well in my traditional circuit, and that's the form of debate I'm most comfortable with, and I feel my ballots in traditional rounds are best + My paradigm for PF carries over to LD, ESPECIALLY truth > tech. Instead of benefits and harms, however, I expect you to take a step back and focus on the moral admissibility (or the lack thereof, if you're on neg) of the resolution under your framework. Unless if the affirmative puts forward a plantext I'm less inclined to go for policy or post-fiat negs + Value/Value criterion debate all the way. Standards are fine as long as the presumptive value is morality. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, you should just cut to the chase and explain why your case works better under that framework + I BEG you: clearly cite, warrant, and explain evidence in your speeches, and do not rely on appeals to common sense in your arguments. + SIGNPOST. If you could signpost where you are in your rebuttal (E.g., "Starting with my case", "Moving onto my opponent's case", etc.), that would be great

Note: if you wish for your pronouns to appear the debaters you judge on text/email blasts, log into Tabroom, click Profile at top, and add them in the Pronouns field.

Judges

MAIN List Paradigms
Lincoln Douglas List & NSDA Paradigms
Policy List & NSDA Paradigms