LD Paradigm

Ill keep this short:

This is my 13th year involved in LD. I qualled to the TOC, and have coached for the last 8 years as a private coach, assistant at a big program, head of LD at a program, and now run FlexDebate.

I believe that debate is a game and you should play it however you want. Im fine with really any argument so long as it is obviously not racist/sexist/homophobic etc. I have usually found that it is better for debaters to read what they are most comfortable with in front of me.

Slow down on tags and standards texts plz.

EDIT: Tricks debate is super boring and non innovating these days, so I am usually less impressed by those debates and will sometimes point lower as a result.

If you have anymore questions feel free to email me at sam@flexdebate.com

PF Paradigm:

Got involved more seriously in PF these last few years-- currently coach Princeton along with a few other teams and am the Director of PF at NSD. I am a flow judge. Make sure to extend offense in the summary. The second rebuttal does not necessarily have to frontline, but obviously often times it is strategic to do so. I also do not think that the first summary necessarily has to make defense, but again, might be strategic in some instances to do so. Finally, please make sure to weigh in later speeches, otherwise it makes it tough for me. Overall, have fun and learn something while you are at it!

This is my second year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I am mostly a lay judge, I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments. Some tips that you might want to take into consideration:

1. Being agressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

2. I like a great Cross-Examination

3. Having good evidence comparison is really good, don't just take into account that evidence is right on face

4. Framework debate is good, but I don't understand complex philosophies, so you will have to explain it very well

Overall, have fun, it's your debate. 

I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework, 

My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine. 

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Bhave%2C+Varun

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Blatt%2C+Charlie

I am a 4th year parent Judge. I prefer a clear understandable argument on the topic at hand. I take copious notes & make my decision after reviewing them, so if I miss something when taking notes it will most likely;y not factor into my decision.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Cha%2C+Nathan

For both LD and PF, I am a very traditional judge. Extreme speed, overuse of jargon, and trickery are not appreciated and could cost you the round. Win the round on the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation. I will disclose ONLY if required by the tournament host. I will offer no oral critiques. Both of those are the purpose of the ballot.

My judging paradigm for Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to an idealistic, just world. The criterion is the standard by which to measure the opposing values and to ultimately define the value that should be upheld. The contentions are used to uphold the value.

Value, criterion and contentions must be clearly stated by both sides.

Therefore, the debater that upholds their value and criteria with the strongest contentions will receive the higher points, thus (generally) the win.

Points that I look for:

· Slow down on the Tags!

· Must be clear with your value and criteria

· Contention and it's value MUST BE crystal clear

· I do not allow flex time

· Speak at a reasonable pace

· Time yourself-I will also keep time

· Argue on logic not emotions

· Quotations have no meanings without explanations

· Make logical and sensible arguments AND explain your arguments.

· There’s a difference between a passionate and an abrasive or condescending debater

· Stay organized

· Be respectful to your opponent

· Construct a well impacted argument/s

· The debater that most clearly present a logical argument AND effectively refute the opponent will be the victor

· MOST OF ALL, ENJOY YOURSELVES WHILE PERFECTING YOUR CRAFT

Likes: signposting; solid evidence/links and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of evidence; well constructed arguments that are on point and do justice to the important topics being debated; and good speaking skills.

Philosophy: I'm familiar with a few common LD frameworks but beyond that, it's to your advantage to err on the side of explanation.

Speed: I can't flow circuit-level speed and pushing that limit won't make me more likely to vote for you. I can flow fast conversational pace. I will let you know if I can't flow you by saying slow or clear, but by then it means I've already missed something.

Theory: should be avoided.

K's: I am unlikely to be persuaded by role of the ballot arguments. I will listen to post-fiat critical philosophy provided that explanation is clear.

Debate judging experience: parent of a VLD debater from Princeton High School and have judged at several tournaments.

I'm a former LD debater who has coached, judged, and worked in Tab at multiple tournaments for many years. I'm open to a wide variety of argumentation and types of cases. I'm definitely more traditional than progressive, but I'm very open-minded, and therefore it's totally up to you how you want to debate the resolution. I don't have any preconceived notions of arguments that I would categorically like to hear or not hear. Theory, when run well, can be very effective, but I tend to favor more traditional types of arguments. I can flow speed, but I think that speaking too quickly can be a hindrance to many debaters as opposed to an asset. For the sake of a clean, fair debate, it's critically important that your opponent and judge(s) can understand everything that you say. Your opponent shouldn't have to waste a third or more of their C-X time asking you to clarify your standards, contentions, card names, etc. In my view, that's not what debate is all about. Please be respectful of your opponent at all times and allow them to answer your C-X questions without constantly interrupting them. Solid, well articulated arguments are key, but it's important to be gracious and professional, too.

My background

I competed in LD (primarily) and Extemp (secondarily) for all four years of high school (2006–2010), and I also dabbled in Congress, PF, and speech. I graduated from Yale University in 2014 and Cornell Law School in 2019. I judged actively during 2015–2016 and I have judged sporadically since then. I find Speech & Debate to be an incredibly fun, valuable, and important activity, and I hope that you have as much fun developing your argumentative and public speaking skills as I did.

My preferences

Speaker points: I evaluate speaker points separately from substance. However, in any argument you will ever have to make, the way you speak can be equally as persuasive as your substance; therefore, I highly value eloquence. As such, 1) if you are speaking faster than you would in an ordinary conversation, you're speaking too quickly; and 2) it's not great if you have your face buried in a laptop (or piece of paper). If you are an eloquent speaker and generally avoid the preceding two pitfalls, I'll likely reward you generously.

Substance ("win-loss"): Although I highly value eloquence, this does not necessarily mean I prefer traditional debate; I am open to creative arguments. Therefore, from a win-loss perspective, you'll have neither an advantage if you stick to traditional debate nor a disadvantage if you run theory. However, I strongly recommend you consider my views on speaker points when choosing your tactics, because in my experience more circuit-y arguments tend to go hand-in-hand with speed and poor eye contact. I won't hesitate to give a low-point win (where permitted). Regardless of what type of argument you run, I will be looking for each point to have adequate support and for you to clearly state the impact of that argument in terms of the overall debate/framework/resolution.

Other:

- You are welcome to time yourself but I will keep the master time for the round.
- Traditional CX only. Please, no flex prep.
- If you use jargon, it would be wise to defer to conceptual over-explanation just in case I'm unfamiliar with the terms you're using.
- Please be respectful towards each other, and towards me, in your language and demeanor.
- Please let me know if you have any questions before the round begins.

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

I debate policy in high school and judged a lot of LD/Policy after graduating. Then 2 years of college debate at The New School(graduated in 2020) and I now work with our current teams. I'm going to vote off the flow but here are a few things:

I was mostly a critical debater so I'm familiar with some of the literature and prefer these debates over policy ones(more in terms of what keeps me interested not what I'm willing to vote on). I really value explanations when it comes to these arguments.

I try to come into the debate with as few preconceived notions as possible but I'm only human. I think every speech act has performance value and I don't like when you contradict yourself. If ur going to run arguments with perfcon you might still win if you can really justify why this is better for debate but it's going to be an uphill battle with me.

Truth over Tech. This doesn't mean a conceded argument isn't won but that I will take into account the actual truth value of arguments to the extent I can without inserting myself into the debate.

Topicality/Framework: I'm more than happy to vote on a T/FW argument as long as the justifications are there in the standards and connected to specific reasons to vote. I'm going to default to the flow on these debates(and every debate) so I think justifications for why I view the T debate a certain way should be told to me in the round.

Kritiks: I usually want the alternative to do something and justify what it does (or does not do for alts like do nothing). I want you to explain to me what the world of the alternative looks like as well as what doing the alternative looks like. I think the best way to approach debating a theory heavy kritik is assume I know absolutely nothing and explaining each part of the K and how the arguments interact with the aff. I won't vote on something I don't understand(from what you've told me, not previous knowledge)

I like a good DA/CP combo as long as it's well impacted and the story is well told.

Being Aff: I've been told a 2A is a storyteller and I love a good story. I think the job of the affirmative is simple- just tell me why the world of the aff is better than the squo or neg world.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

I attended Chandler High School in AZ and competed LD for more or less three of those years. I now attend Rutgers University, but do not debate anymore.
General Thoughts
- PLEASE WEIGH BECAUSE IT IS MUCH HARDER TO EVALUATE THE ROUND IF YOU DON'T. This really should go without saying but too many debaters do NOT do sufficient weighing. Also EXPLICITLY MAKE EXTENSIONS because I am not going to evaluate an argument unless it is extended (you don't have to say the word extend but make it clear to me what you're doing). 
- If I don't hear an argument I am not going to flow it or evaluate it. Please be clear and slow down for taglines and what not.
- Don't like spikes and probably won't vote on them unless you go all out on them. Gotta take risk to get reward.
- Don't lose track of prep time; if you forgot how much time you had left I'm going to assume you didn't have any. I don't count flashing as prep time but be reasonable about it.. 
T/Theory
- I don't have the highest threshold for theory but the more time you devote to it the more I am inclined to vote on it. Most debaters that I have seen do not spend nearly enough time to theory for me to consider voting on it.
- I default to reasonability and drop the argument unless asked to otherwise. 
Policy-Style Arguments
- I enjoy Ks and hearing good K debate. I find a lot of K alts I hear somewhat lame so you need to do a good job of telling me why your alternative solves for the harms listed in your kritik. 
- Disads have link stories that don't really make sense to me but I'll evaluate them as well as any argument. Please explain why your impacts are significant; that is, weigh them under some sort of framework. 
- CPs are fine but don't forget to weigh their impacts under some sort of framework! 

If you have specific questions, please ask.

I am on the planning committee for the Texas Debate Collective and the director for NSD Philadelphia I'm a MA candidate in American Studies where I'm working on the intersection between Asian-American and Disability Studies. I coach Loyola JC, Bronx Science YW, and Bergen County EL.

Overview

1. The round belongs to its debaters, not the judge, so it's the job of the debaters to tell me who won, not the other way around. I do my best to evaluate rounds in terms of least intervention, which means I search first for weighing as a means to scale what the key issues are, then examine the arguments thereof. The biases and defaults in this paradigm are meant to help you, not to restrict what you want to do.
2. If you use the word "retarded" as an equivalence to the word "stupid" or "bad" without acknowledgement (that is, an apology upon saying it), I will drop you

Evidence Ethics/ Clipping Cards/ etc.

1. Evidence ethics is an argument to be made in the debate round. I will not stop the round because of an accusation of people miscutting or misusing evidence, for there is a fair academic debate to be had.
2. Card clipping: I will review recordings if available. To accuse someone of clipping cards will cause the round to stop. I'll decide using whatever material I have to figure out if somebody has clipped. If I decide a debater was clipping, I will give that person a L20. If the person accusing is wrong, for I have decided that clipping did not occur, I will give the accuser a L20. I have never judged an accusation of card clipping. I'm not as good at flowing as other judges are, and will invariably give somebody the benefit of the doubt that they did not clip cards.

Speaks:

1. I evaluate speaker points on strategy, arg quality, time allocation, and if you are respectful and nice. When did nice become equated with weakness? I am not impressed by overt-aggression or ad hominen styles of debate. Micro versions of this include "You should've listened in lab more!" or "I have no idea what you're thinking!" Come on. If it's nasty to say to somebody outside of debate it absolutely is in the debate round. Kindness should matter more.
2. What I do not factor in, however, is literal speaking clarity, efficiency, etc.
3. I don't consider the number of times I say clear or slow into speaker points
4. I will not evaluate arguments about "not calling blocks" or what not. Similarly, you can't just tell me to give you a 30.
5. I won't give you higher speaks if you end your speech early- nor will I sign the ballot before the end of the 2AR. I don't know why judges do this. This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
6. I don't find stand up 2ARs or 2NRs perceptually dominant at all

Post- Round

1. I think post-round discussion is valuable. However, if debater A has just lost the round, and in A’s questioning of the judge, opponent B decides to comment and enter into this conversation, I will drop opponent B’s speaker points and get angry in the process
2. If I sit and you are the winner (that is, the other 2 judges voted for you), and would like to ask me extensive questions, I will ask that you let the other RFDs be given and then let the opponent leave before asking me more questions. I'm fine answering questions, but just to be fair the other people in the room should be allowed to leave.

Background
I debated for Hunter College High School from 2010-2014 on the national circuit (focused in the Northeast) and attended the TOC my senior year. I am currently a student at Columbia University. 

General

I will try to judge based on what debaters do in round, rather than on my own opinions. But, I do have some preferences that will affect your speaks and, inevitably to some degree, my evaluation.

I won’t disregard impacts based on an arbitrarily narrow standard, such as a “minimizing war” standard that is just justified through util. Also, you can’t drop spikes and then respond in the next speech, but you can respond to the way the spike interacts with your case. This also goes for theory interps in the AC. Lastly, I will not default to presuming for one side in particular – if there is no presumption argument in the round and I find myself with a truly irresolvable round, I will vote for whoever I feel did a better job, as this seems less arbitrary to me than automatically presuming aff or neg.


Theory

I suppose I default to competing interpretations in the sense that I will compare offense and defense on the theory debate to evaluate it, but I do not really have any strong feelings about this. If you are running reasonability, though, you need to have a standard for what it is to be reasonable, not just assert that I should gutcheck on theory.

Sidenotes:

1) Due to the proliferation of generic theory spikes in ACs such as "CX checks meets all theory interps" and "neg must quantify abuse", know that speaks will suffer if you rely on these to win the theory debate and do not do a good job of addressing the specific abuse story. Additionally, be sure that the spike explains exactly what happens if dropped (i.e. should I drop the shell, vote them down etc.) 
2) I will give the neg leeway on these spikes, meaning that if I'm not sure if their 3 responses really answer back your 1 sentence assertion, I'm going to ignore your spike. 



Kritiks

I don’t think I will be the best judge for a K debate. I am not familiar with the literature, and I often find them flawed. Additionally, I find that many K impacts do not link to a justified framework, and I will not vote for those arguments. Lastly, I find pre-fiat or micropolitical voters uncompelling.

Speaks and Stuff

If I think you should clear based on your performance in this round, you will get a 28.5 or higher. These are based on your strategy, argument quality, and technical skills as well as your actual speaking skills. In terms of in-round behavior, I would prefer that you have real cross ex (not just prep the whole time), but you can stand or sit to do this. Asking questions in prep time is of course fine. Try not to be mean to your opponent, and if you are way better than your opponent, please don’t beat them down – make it an educational and enjoyable experience for them. I do not mind if you sit during speeches. I am happy to call clear if I cannot understand you and I am willing to call for things after the round.


Good luck and feel free to ask me questions before or after the round!

I did LD debate when I went to high school (2010-2014). I used to judge consistently but stopped in 2017. Since then, I've only judged once before this tournament.

I prefer the debaters speak slowly. I also prefer if they make arguments through creative thinking rather than just reading prewritten stuff. Weighing is also important because each side invariably wins some arguments, so I need to know which arguments are the most important.

That being said, you should debate however you prefer and I'll do my best to evaluate the round based solely on the arguments made in the round.

I did LD in high school. I can flow. I'm not the best with speed but I'll tell you to slow down if I start to miss stuff. 

Beyond that, I'm unlikely to vote off dropped arguments and will probably vote off whatever clash there is.

In terms of what I like to see, try to say things that seem important and that you can back up as truth.

I am a very traditional judge. I do not like speed. Speak at a normal pace.

No K's. Debate the topic.

Crystalize. Tell me why you won the debate. If you write out my RFD, you stand a better chance of winning.

Make sure that you bring up any cross-ex points in your next speech. Connect them to what you have said.

Overall, I want to know why you should win the round. Spell it out. If you leave it up to me, don't be surprised if I had a different takeaway than you wanted.

TL;DR:

· Make it clear and easy for me to see why you won and you'll probably win.

With More Words:

I've judged and coached extensively across events but at this point spend more time on the tab side of tournaments than judging.

If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling, and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume util = trutil. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, explain it, warrant it, contextualize it, extend it.

Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate myself for voting for you. That being said, I firmly believe that debate is an educational activity and that rounds should be accessible. I will not vote for arguments that are intentionally misrepresenting evidence or creating an environment that is hostile or harmful.

I am open to pretty much anything you want to read but, in the interest of full disclosure, I think that tricks set bad communication norms within debate.

General Stuff:

Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink and pretend they "didn't respond". In the back half of the debate, make sure your extensions are responsive to the arguments made, not just rereading your cards. If they say something in cross that it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Line by line is important but being able to step back and explain the narrative/ doing the comparative analysis makes it easier to vote for you.

Weighing is important and the earlier you set it up, the better. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence-- particularly in later speeches in the round, I'd rather slightly fewer cards with more analysis about what the evidence uniquely means in this specific round. Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, give a roadmap before you start/sign post as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.

Speed is fine but clarity is essential. Even if I have a speech doc, you'd do best to slow down on tags and analytics. Your speaks will be a reflection of your strategic choices, overall decorum, and how clean your speeches are.

Evidence (PF):

Having evidence ethics is a thing. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Exchanges where you need to spend more than a minute pulling up a card make me rethink the choices in my life that led me to this round. Generally speaking, I think that judges calling for cards at the end of the round leads to judge intervention. This is a test of your rhetorical skills, not my ability to read and analyze what the author is saying. However, if there is a piece of evidence that is being contested that you want me to read and you ask me to in a speech, I will. Just be sure to contextualize what that piece of evidence means to the round.

A Final Note:

This is a debate round, not a divorce court and your participation in the round should match accordingly. If we are going to spend as many hours as we do at a tournament, we might as well not make it miserable.

Sure, I'd Love to be on the Email Chain: AMurphy4n6@gmail.com

I'm an assistant professor of philosophy at USC and executive director of Victory Briefs.

Please add me to the email chain: jake@victorybriefs.com. I don't read along. Happy to answer questions either in person or via email.

Constraints

I'll vote on any argument, so long as:

1. It's compatible with basic norms of respect for your opponent and others. This applies both to the substance of your arguments and to the way in which you deliver them. I have no interest in watching high school students be jerks to each other or to anyone else.

2. It is an argument. An argument needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I won't vote on unwarranted claims or blatant non-sequiturs. Not all "because" clauses are actual warrants. A warrant must provide some reason, however weak, to believe the claim.

3. It honestly and accurately represents your evidence. I will ignore any card that I know to be misrepresented. Powertagging counts as misrepresentation. For example, if your tag says that something will certainly happen when the card only says it could possibly happen, or your tag says "extinction" but your card doesn't mention it, you won't get credit for anything in the card. It is also misrepresentation to highlight a card to say something stronger than (or otherwise distinct from) what it actually says. For example, if your evidence says "possibly p" and you only highlight and read "p," you have misrepresented what your evidence says.

4. It is clearly explained. To vote on an argument, I need to understand the entire piece of reasoning—claim, warrant, and impact—when you first articulate it. And I need to understand it because you explained it, not merely because I've read the literature or everyone knows the card. My threshold for understanding an argument is whether I can explain it back to you. If your argument is not explained sufficiently clearly in the first speech, I won't consider it even if it becomes clearer later on.

Delivery

I like fast debate, but not at the cost of clarity, and most debaters are not as clear as they think they are. I need to be able to understand every word you say. And, if the argument is at all complicated, I need time to process what you're saying. So you should probably slow down—not just on tags, texts, and author names, but across the board. I need to be able to hear and flow the warrants in your cards.

A good heuristic is not to read evidence much faster than your top extemporaneous speed. Another is not to read faster than you would be able to flow and process if you were hearing the argument for the first time without following along the speech doc.

I'll yell "clear" or "slow," and am very okay with debaters doing the same when reasonable—which, in my experience, it usually is. You should be aware that, by the time I've spoken up, I've probably already missed something. So you really should start slower and speed up gradually.

If a string of words morphs into an argument that wasn't clearly expressed by those words, "This wasn't clearly explained" is a pretty decisive response to me.

Preferences

Other things being equal, I tend to prefer:

- Nuanced, topic-specific arguments over recycled arguments of any generic flavor. If an argument could be run on pretty much any topic or in pretty much any round, I'm unlikely to be ecstatic about it, but of course I'll vote on it anyway. Among the generic flavors of argument—e.g., policy, kritiks, theory, philosophy, tricks—I suppose I'm indifferent, and would prefer you to run whatever you think are the strongest arguments. But all are equally subject to the four constraints above.

- A small number of well-developed, high-quality arguments over a large number of blippy, low-quality arguments. I also prefer rebuttals that collapse on a single issue, and NC strategies that contain at least a few minutes on case.

- Technical line-by-line over long overviews. Pop up from the flow every now and then to hammer down key points and integrate individual arguments into the big picture. But in general I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to arguments that are clearly responding to other arguments.

Misc.

Just because I'm a philosopher doesn't mean I'll prefer a debate about traditionally "philosophical" issues. As a philosopher I care more about the quality of an argument than its subject matter.

I won't hack for claims I've publicly defended. I evaluate arguments as they are presented. Obviously it helps to make arguments from premises you know I'll find compelling. But there are many bad arguments for true conclusions. I'd prefer to vote on a good argument for a conclusion I believe to be false than on a bad argument for a conclusion I believe to be true.

If your card just says that some impact is really important, or even the most important thing in the world, I won't assume that it's the only impact that matters.

If the NR goes for a conditional counterplan, which turns out to be worse than the aff, I'll still vote negative if the affirmative is worse than the status quo. (In other words, yes, I'll kick the CP.)

I need to know, in the NC, who the agent of the alternative is.

Please be charitable when interpreting and answering your opponent's arguments.

If I have no real grounds for deciding either way, I'll flip a coin, unless someone argues that I should do otherwise. I have done this exactly once in recent memory.

I am an old school LD debater who was also once a policy debater. Basically, I can handle speed but I do not like spread.

to me the best rounds are devoid of theory or K. Rather they focus on framework clash and the debaters genuinely try to persuade me. I am more than willing to have further discussion before the round so ask away. 

Finally. Time yourself, please! If you have to rely on my hand signals, you're going to have a bad day. 

Likes: signposting; solid evidence/links and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of evidence; well constructed arguments that are on point and do justice to the important topics being debated; and good speaking skills.

Philosophy: I'm familiar with a few common LD frameworks but beyond that, it's to your advantage to err on the side of explanation.

Speed: I can't flow circuit-level speed and pushing that limit won't make me more likely to vote for you. I can flow fast conversational pace. I will let you know if I can't flow you by saying slow or clear, but by then it means I've already missed something.

Theory: should be avoided.

K's: I am unlikely to be persuaded by role of the ballot arguments. I will listen to post-fiat critical philosophy provided that explanation is clear.

Debate judging experience: parent of a VLD debater from Princeton High School; I judge at a few tournaments per year.

About Myself:  Father of a Princeton (NJ) High School Senior. I'm now in my fourth year judging Lincoln-Douglas, with a little experience as a Public Forum judge as well. Usually judge 5 to 8 tournaments a year.

Judging Philosophy:  A traditional parent judge looking for a straightforward debate on the issue--no ks, no theory, no debating the validity of the resolution itself. I want to see clash on opposing sides of the issue. Fewer contentions backed up by strong evidence is better than trying to overwhelm your opponent with items in the hope they drop one that you can extend across the flow. Signposting and voter issues always gratefully accepted. Keep speed conversational. Remember that I can't flow as fast as you can talk and if I have to ask you to slow down then I've already missed something.

Martin Page

Assistant Director--Debate

Ridge High School

Updated for TOC 2016

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm (Scroll Down for PF)

General Update 4/2016: I much prefer rounds where specific interactions happen rather than rounds where the strategy is to extend dropped arguments and blow them up without really addressing the other debater's position(s).  This is particularly true on the negative side--I FIRMLY believe the 1NC should spend time SPECIFICALLY addressing the AC on the AC side of the flow.  This is not to say that I won't vote for you if you don't do this, but debaters who do this will get higher speaks.  Also, please stop assuming I understand dense, uncommon positions--you need to be clear in your explanation.

Overview: I've been judging circuit LD for a while now and actively coach it, so I am familiar with many different types of arguments.  Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round/how you are interacting with the other side.   I can't think of any arguments I won't evaluate (except the offensive "rape good, racism good, etc." arguments which I will drop you for running)--my goal is to not intervene. Please make sure it is clear to me how all arguments are functioning in the round.  Slow down on tags.  Overviews are much appreciated.

Some important notes:
1--I find myself incredibly uncomfortable with frameworks that explicitly use religion as a justification (evidently called the "God" case). I will attempt to evaluate them as I would any other argument, but if you're attempting to argue that God exists in front of me and that's a reason to vote one way or another, I'm not going to be very receptive to the argument. I respect every person's freedom of religion, but I struggle to understand the place of religion in the debate space.
2--I really struggle to evaluate rounds where there is no weighing, a lack of crystallization, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. Crystallize in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh or explain why your arguments are a prerequisite or pre-empt to those made by the other side. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped--implicate the drop and tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round, and the lower the chance that I accidentally intervene/have to play "argument roulette" and pluck something off the flow to vote off of because no one told me how to evaluate the round.
3--I am not very receptive to arguments saying that your opponent does not have the right to speak on a certain issue. This does not apply to theory arguments that say "debaters must not X" or "speaking for others" kritiks, which argue that NO debaters should do a certain thing (they don't leave one debater allowed to speak on an issue and another not allowed to speak on the issue). But I am not very receptive to "My opponent comes from X background, so she shouldn't speak on this issue, but I can because I come from Y background." If this argument has no carded evidence attached to it, I will not evaluate it. If it does have carded evidence attached to it, I will evaluate it, but I consider it an ad hominem attack and will have an extremely low threshold for responses to it. However, I am fine with (and even like) arguments that say authors of evidence are less qualified to speak on issues because of their background; this type of argument discusses how out-of-round discourse is shaped, so I'm fine with it. 
4--You really need to slow down on the tags and implications of evidence in less common, phil-heavy frameworks, especially if they come from the analytic tradition or are not very common in LD. I am not as familiar with these frameworks, so make sure you are especially clear in explaining how they function.

5--I'm really bad at keeping track of blippy cross applications when you're on your side of the flow; for example, if you're extending out of the AC on the AC side of the flow and also say "cross-apply this to X card on the NC flow" the chances are I miss that or something else right after it. So I prefer these cross-applications be made when you are making arguments on the side of the flow you are applying them to. 

Speed: I'm basically fine with speed--though the very, very fastest LD rounds might be slightly out of my comfort zone. I’ll say "slow" if you’re going too fast, "enunciate" if the words are garbled, and "louder" if you're too soft. If you're going fast on the evidence, please make sure the tags and analysis are slightly slower and are clear.  My issue is most often with enunciation and lack of vocal emphasis on important points in the case, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. 

Kritiks: I really like them, including narratives/performance arguments. I enjoy role of the ballot arguments and micropolitical positions, both pre- and post-fiat.  I do not care if you are topical as long as you JUSTIFY why you are not going to be topical.  This doesn't mean you are immune from losing a T debate; it simply means I will evaluate non-topical positions.  Please make the link story clear on the negative side.  I'm better at evaluating ks and other policy arguments than I am at dealing with heavy and uncommon philosophical positions, but I will vote off the flow. 

T/Theory: I would rather hear a substantive debate, but I don’t have a bias against evaluating theory, and I am growing more comfortable and familiar with it. Please be sure to give me a clear sense of how the shells and theory strategy function in the round and interact with the other side. I prefer theory be read at a slower pace than other positions, and PLEASE slow down on interps and implications.  I understand that theory has strategic value beyond just checking abuse, but PLEASE note the following:

--I prefer (and sometimes even like) T debate to theory debate because I find it more interesting and relevant.

--I default reasonability and drop the argument.

--When a shell is missing links or poorly explained, or if I find the theory more abusive than the abuse itself (more than 4 shells in the NR, for example) I'm going to have a lower threshold for responses.

--If the neg position is actually abusive, unlike many judges, I am receptive to theory initiated in the 1 AR, but only against an actual abuse.

--I find AFC and theory that is run against an out-of-round abuse (i.e. disclosure theory) or an abuse that is not related to content (apparently "wifi theory" is a thing?) annoying, abusive, and bad for education, so I have a lower threshold for responses on these as well, and speaks will be low.  Running these things won't get you more than a 26.9.

--If there is no voter extended in the 2AR/2NR I will not vote on it unless it is the only offense in the round.  I default to voting on substance if the theory debate is muddled and lacks a voter in the final rebuttal.

Tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments:

I am not a fan of "tricks" and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for extensions of blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses, and speaks will be low.  However, I am somewhat more receptive to skep (though I certainly don't love it) and tricky philosophical arguments that are extremely well-developed--if you are running these arguments, you need to slow down.  Running skep or well-developed analytically philosophical tricks that I understand when they are argued in the AC will not negatively affect you're speaks.

When I say "lower threshold for responses" it means I think these are weak arguments or abusive strategies, so while I will always vote off the flow, I don't like these arguments to begin with, so I'm very open to logical responses to them.

Extensions: I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend a full argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient.  Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way.  Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round.  

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all fine.  If you're running a DA, make sure the link is clear and you're weighing, but in general, I like policy arguments and am probably better at evaluating them than I am at evaluating heavy and uncommon philosophical positions.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28 and go up/down from there. Please note that in addition to what is listed below, I also give some consideration to clarity of spreading (enunciation especially) and word economy. If your words are incredibly garbled, I'm not going to be particularly happy--this usually makes a difference of .1-.2 speaker points. 

26-26.9--You have a lot of work to do OR you ran AFC or disclosure theory.

27-27.9--You did a decent job, but I do not think you have a chance of breaking.

28-28.9--You will probably break, but you aren't interacting arguments enough and are not making strategic enough decisions.

29-29.9--You are one of the better debaters I've judged at the tournament.  You're clearly signposting, weighing and/or explaining how arguments function in the round.  Your strategy might have a misstep or two, but on the whole, you've executed extremely well.

30--You executed your strategy in such a way that I wouldn't reasonably expect better from a high school student.

 Some Notes on Public Forum

I've judged more LD this year than anything else, and I struggle to find out what that means for those off you who have me as a PF judge.  I will say the following: I vote strictly off the flow, I aim not to intervene, and I will call cards in PF only if there is dispute over evidence in the round or if something seemed off to me when you read the card (i.e. if you cite the Washington Post saying 90% of Americans are Democrats or something).  Some specifics:

1--I do not care how fast you speak.

2--Turns are offense.  Implicate and use them as such.

3--The summary should respond to your opponent's rebuttal against your case and generally focus on your side of the flow (i.e. focus on your offense, not defense on their case--but remember, turns are offense).  Since it's usually impossible to respond to everything that was said in their rebuttal, be strategic about which arguments you go for and please weigh. 

4--Please crystallize the round in the final focus.  If you don't weigh arguments in the summary and final focus, it will be very hard for me not to intervene, which makes everyone sad.

5--Frameworks and observations are important and should provide me a way to weigh the round. 

6--In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense (things that were dropped and clearly extended) rather than doing weighing for you.

Feel free to email me at martin.d.k.page@gmail.com if you have questions.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

I am a parent judge who has been judging since 2014. I am your traditional parent judge who does some basic flowing. The easiest path to my ballot is through logical arguments and slow, articulate speaking. I know you don't want to see this, but I'm truth>tech. If your argument makes sense to me, I'll be happy to vote off of it. If your argument isn't well warranted and just doesn't make sense to me, don't expect for me to vote off of it. I know some basic debate jargon, but the less you use the better. Mutual respect in round is key, and if I see cheating in any way(such as using messaging platforms for help) I will automatically drop you.

Flow Judge - If it is not on my flow it does not exist in the round.

Speed is fine. Enjoy technically proficient debaters. Poor time allocation is a pet peeve of mine.

Will doc speakers for uncivil/ungracious opponents.

Coach (LD/PF)

Former LD/Policy/PF Debater

I did LD at Coronado in Las Vegas for four years, competing locally and nationally. I placed at many tournaments and received 4th at nats. I now attend Princeton and I'm on the debate team there.

The Basics:

I enjoy circuit debate. However, it's really important that you understand the kinds of arguments you're making and the function of theory, Ks, ect. The most important thing to me is that you make logically sound, intelligent arguments. If you can do so with your case, that's all that matters. I will not vote you down for running progessive strategies, just make sure that you understand what you are saying and that what you're saying is actually relevant.

Speed:  Spreading is freeing, I get it. I will listen to you and flow as best I can. If you become unclear, I will say clear. If you do not heed that warning, I will put my pen down until you slow down. I love debate--I want to be able to hear what you are saying. You are free to speak as quickly as you want, but make sure that you speak at a speed--and volume--in which your opponent and I are able to grasp what your argument is.

Framework: I often default to voting on framework. Please work hard to make your framework clear and strong. If you win framework for me, you are likely to win the round.

Kritiks: I will vote for a K only if it is clear to me that you actually understand what your K is saying. This can be done through a variety of ways--the most effective in which you break it down simply and explain it well. If you are unable to truly explain it, so that your opponent and I can grasp what you are saying, please don't argue it. There is no point in putting forth an argument that cannot be fairly understood and argued with. I'd prefer if you had an alternative point to your K other than "reject the aff/neg mindset". I will vote for your K if you give me a reason to. I will value the K under the framework that is won.

Role of Judge: I try my hardest to put aside my own beliefs during the round. I believe that my role is to evaluate what is done in the round. I am not going to be that guy that inserts his own opinion and arguments into the decision because it is not my debate, it's yours. I will evaluate what happens in the round.

Conduct: It is extremely important to me that there is fair, respectful conduct between the two parties in a round. I will not tolerate anything that could be deemed deliberately offensive or hurtful. Debate is meant to be a safe community in which everyone is to be treated with ample respect and kindness. I repeat, I will not tolerate disrespectful behavior. I don't think it's nice, I don't think it's fair, and I don't think that people should feel unsafe in this community.

Theory: I'll vote on theory if it is thought out, and not just hasty and unclear. For me to buy theory though, you really have to convince me that your opponent is doing something that is actually unfair or uneducational. I mayyyyyy vote on something that has to do with the side being unfair, but this is highly unlikely, as it is not your opponent's fault that he was randomly generated to be aff/neg this round.

Feel free to ask me anything else, about debate, about life. I would seriously love answering your questions and talking to you. REMEMBER THAT DEBATE IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN SO HAVE FUN PLEASE. Seriously, these are going to be some of your greatest memories so take it all in when you can. Also have a wonderful day.

I am a parent judge. I judged NLD last year and I have judged both NLD and VLD this year. Some speed is fine but no spreading. My decision will be based on the strengths of the arguments and weighing.

You can run CPs, Theory, Ks, or whatever you want, but please explain them well. I strongly value relevant arguments that are supported by empirical evidence and logical warrants. 

The burden is on you to persuade me!

Background:

I am a parent judge for Princeton High School on my second year. I judged LD at numerous tournaments last year, typically varsity with some JV and novice. A long time ago I completed during high school in LD (3 years), Congress (1 year), Extemporaneous and Impromptu (4 years each) including at the NFL National Championships twice (Congress and Extemporaneous) and California State Championships (multiple categories) 3 years. Best results were 5th Place nationally in Extemporaneous Commentary, and 3rd and 5th place CA State in Congress. Subsequently I was a speechwriter for the CEO of a large public company and served as the company spokesperson. 

Debate Preferences:

Ultimately I will do my best to follow and adapt to any style or technique. However, I have a strong preference for traditional at a persuasive pace. I prefer elegant, compelling oratory over speed, great facts over sheer quantity, compelling overall case and rebuttal over technicalities or K's, etc. I'm not impressed with the Trumpocalypse or Pokemon arguments, for example. Support a few key points very well and carry them through successfully defended all challenges. Don't assume I am already fluent in your value criteria. Don't short-change the contentions. Don't let challenges to credibility of your sources go without a response.

And have fun. Seriously, if you're not enjoying it what's the point?

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Experienced judge, I have judged at local and national tournaments.

In a round I expect to hear well developed cases with strong and logical arguments as well as credible references.

It is always helpful to summarize your case at the end and convince me to give you the win.

Enúnciate and Project your voice so I can Clearly hear and understand you.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thaler,+Noah

I was an LD debater for St. Louis Park High School for four years and a policy debater for the University of Minnesota for four years. I coached for St. Louis Park throughout college and have taught at various LD summer debate camps, including NSD, CDI, and VBI. I’m also a Ph.D. student in philosophy at Rutgers University. I’ve mostly taken a break from debate the last couple of years to focus on my dissertation, so while I have plenty of debate experience, I might not be up on the latest trends.

I’ll listen to and give reasonable speaker points for pretty much any style of debate or argument. There are some arguments that I don’t find persuasive, like theory, but that hasn’t stopped me from voting for those arguments, and I don’t think it has much of an impact on my judging. I tend to give more speaker points for creative arguments and interesting strategies because I like to reward risk-taking, but those things certainly aren’t necessary for high speaker points. Do whatever you want to do, but do it well.

I’m not ideologically opposed to speed, but I’m rusty enough that I don’t recommend going super-fast. I’m willing to yell ‘clear’ if I’m missing most of your arguments, but the slower you go, the more I’ll catch. If it’s clear that your opponent isn’t understanding you, you will get better speaker points if you slow down on their behalf. Relatedly, you’ll get better speaker points if you’re helpful during your opponent’s cross examination. Don’t intentionally waste time or be a jerk.

I try not to call cards or other material unless the situation demands it. If there is a debate about the details of a card’s wording, I’ll call the card. If you weren’t clear when reading the card or explaining it, that’s on you.

I like clear rounds and responsive arguments. To that end, compare your arguments to your opponent’s arguments and avoid reading non-responsive blocks. For example, a 7-minute kritik that doesn’t have anything to do with what your opponent said is not impressive and makes for a confusing round. A 7-minute kritik that has specific links to your opponent’s arguments and specific arguments comparing your impacts to your opponent’s impacts will get better speaker points.

Let me know if you have any questions!

As a parent, I judged VLD, NLD, and PF tournaments, such as State Final, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Big Lex, etc. in the last 4 years. I am well versed on the elements in traditional LD debate with background knowledge in philosophy, politics, economics, legal, religion and so forth within traditional LD debate format. I focus on the logical arguments and clear delivery of messages in your framework and contentions. I am not very familiar with progressive debate, and I will give low speaker points for spreading.

Can't Judge: Stuyvesant, Lexington

Background: I debated for 4 years at Lexington and competed almost exclusively on the national circuit.

I coached for Stuyvesant from 2014-2017 and also helped out some former students for TOC 2018. I haven't judged since that tournament and have 0 content knowledge about the topic.

I think part of what makes debate great is its incredible openness. Given that fact, I am fine with speed, theory, policy-style argumentation, dense framework arguments, kritiks, performance, tricks, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Debate is your game. Play it how you want to.

Feel free to message me with any questions at pzhou@wesleyan.edu

Some judges that influenced me: Sam Azbel