National Speech and Debate Tournament

2018 — Fort Lauderdale, FL/US

Susan Orlowski Paradigm

Lincoln Douglas

Your experience with LD Debate (check all that apply)

Current LD coach

How many years have you judged LD debate?


How many LD rounds have you judged this year?


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?


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


Rebuttals and Crystallization

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

Voting issues should be given:


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


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.

Experience: 4 years of public forum, 4 years of NFA-LD (one-person policy debate), and 2 years of coaching NFA-LD. I feel that debate should reward hard work. I will call for cards at the end of the round, and my ballot and speaker points will be used to reward the team with a greater quality and quantity of evidence. I prefer substantive arguments and default to a logical-decision maker paradigm. I am rarely persuaded by theory arguments that are not topicality or shells that do not have real implications for the solvency of the affirmative. You should engage in evidence and impact comparison. Impact comparison should be a full exploration of the link, internal link, and impact card to produce a full analysis of the probability, timeframe, and magnitude. Speed is not an issue for me as long as it is reciprocal and not exclusive. My preference is for policy and k debates, but I will listen to anything. If you have a more traditional philosophy AC or NC, I would like it if you spent more time explaining the argument as I am not as familiar with the literature. If you read a K, please don't ignore the technical aspects of the flow. I want quality extension of the k and an explanation of how it interacts with the affirmative. I see a lot of generic k extensions with very little discussion of the implications to the aff.