National Speech and Debate Tournament

2018 — Fort Lauderdale, FL/US

Peter Dong Paradigm

Lincoln Douglas

Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)

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

How many years have you judged LD debate?

10

How many LD rounds have you judged this year?

11-20

What is your preferred rate of delivery?

/91 = Slow conversational style
9 = Rapid conversation speed
 

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision?

 

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

How important is the criterion in making your decision?

5
 

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

N

Rebuttals and Crystallization

It may be a factor depending on its use in the round
 

Voting issues should be given:

N
 

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

 

Final rebuttals should include:

 

Voting issues are:

How do you decide the winner of the round?

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

I decide who is the winner of the key argument in the round/91 = Not necessary
9 = Always necessary

Please describe your personal note-taking during the round

2

Additional remarks:

I keep a rigorous flow

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.

Please impact your arguments to the framework. I dislike spreading when it results in disjoint, scattered arguments that have no connection to the framework. I'd prefer a clear articulation of the key arguments. Make sure to clash! I don't bother listening to rehashing of previous arguments. Make sure to justify your claims; for example, if your case focuses on reducing structural violence, you must show that it exists and demonstrate solvency. I have seen a lot of cases recently that seem to believe it unnecessary to show evidence of claims of structural oppression, and I find them unconvincing.