National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023
—
Phoenix/Mesa,
AZ/US
Gwen Gray Schwartz Paradigm
Lincoln Douglas
Lincoln Douglas Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)
Experienced LD judge
How many years have you judged LD debate?
3
How many LD rounds have you judged this year?
31-40
What is your preferred rate of delivery?
5/91 = Slow conversational style
9 = Rapid conversation speed
Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?
Y
Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed?
N
How important is the criterion in making your decision?
It may be a factor depending on its use in the round
Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case?
Y
Rebuttals and Crystallization
Voting issues should be given:
As one moves down the flow
The use of jargon or technical language ("extend", "cross-apply", "turn", etc.) during rebuttals:
Should be kept to a minimum
Final rebuttals should include:
Voting issues
Voting issues are:
Absolutely necessary
How do you decide the winner of the round?
I decide who is the winner of the key argument in the round
How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?
8/91 = Not necessary
9 = Always necessary
Please describe your personal note-taking during the round
I keep detailed notes throughout the round
Additional remarks:
LD debaters have a responsibility to examine a proposition through the lens of philosophy, but they must also provide clear and concrete evidence to support their position at every turn. Use credible evidence and clearly cite it each time you reference it. If someone calls for a card, you should have the exact location within that source at the ready, and you should be ready to defend any source information you provide if attacked—if you have another source that confirms or bolsters your original claim, even better. This means you must read through evidence carefully and avoid cherry-picking only those pieces that fit with your goals. If there is conflicting evidence available, you should provide it and then show how one part is more important or applicable than another; this is one sign of a thorough debater. If you talk so fast that I can’t follow, that’s a problem. What wins me over? Nuance. Catch your opponent in a weak argument and expose it nicely, with evidence to the contrary. Instead of listing numerous pieces of evidence without explaining any of it, be selective and relate the evidence to the real world. Be poetic rather than robotic. And never berate your opponent or say they don’t know what they’re talking about; use your evidence to show that your argument is stronger. Nuance includes conceding strengths in your opponent’s case, but with the additional ability to bring your judges back around to your own argument’s strengths; convince me that yours are stronger by circling back to how you opened the case. Being able to think on your feet shows a depth of preparedness, both in the research you do and in the prep you've done countering possible attacks, and it shows in the most seasoned of debaters.
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.
