National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023
—
Phoenix/Mesa,
AZ/US
Sherry Meng Paradigm
Lincoln Douglas
Lincoln Douglas Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)
Experienced LD judge
Current Public Forum coach or judge
How many years have you judged LD debate?
2
How many LD rounds have you judged this year?
41+
What is your preferred rate of delivery?
7/91 = 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 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?
N
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:
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?
9/91 = Not necessary
9 = Always necessary
Please describe your personal note-taking during the round
I keep detailed notes throughout the round
Additional remarks:
Tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds when such arguments show up.
Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.
Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will be unfair per your value to vote for your opponents even though you argue well. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut-check everything. Consider me as a lay judge!
K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you convince me otherwise.
Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.
Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.
Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot. Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.
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.
