I competed in LD debate for Catalina Foothills High School in Tucson, AZ and graduated in 2007. I attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison for undergrad and the University of Iowa for grad school. I have a business and finance background, and have been working in the corporate world for 10 years. I currently live in Las Vegas, NV.

From 2008 to 2015, I judged at local tournaments (in WI and IA) as well as TOC bid tournaments in the Midwest, and I briefly coached as well. I am pretty open minded and will listen to creative arguments, theory, etc. as long as they're explained well. That being said, I have been removed from debate for the past 4 years or so. If you have specific questions, just ask before the round. In terms of speed, please go a little bit slower due to the debate being virtual. I'll judge off the flow and extensions should be made clearly, and I will give 30 speaks for clear extensions turned to voting issues. Please email me your case before the round at kcagrawal7@gmail.com.

I am primarily an IE judge, and my Lincoln Douglas judging experience is more limited--though I do enjoy the intellectual challenge that LD judging offers.

When I do judge LD I try to base my evaluation on real-world effectiveness, rather than the strict formalism of the LD "game." I'm a reasonably well-informed adult American, often with a personal interest in the issue at hand. You'll win if you present a clear roadmap and conceptual framework, connect the dots both causally and with concrete evidence, and satisfy my intellect while also making an emotional connection. Ultimately, was yours the more compelling argument?

Some suggestions:

* Limit your affirmative argument to your strongest two or three points. I dislike the kitchen-sink approach, mainly because it dilutes the effectiveness of your main thrust. What is your primary value? Really, will "spreading" enable you to sway people's hearts in the real world?
* Use economy of words. At Gettysburg, Edward Everett spoke for two hours before Lincoln said his 264 words. Which speech do you remember?
* Slow down. You've repeated these arguments in practice until they begin to lose their meaning, but this may be the first time I've thought about the issue. I won't be persuaded if I can't keep up with the thread of your argument.
* Silence isn't your enemy. Punctuate your most important points with pauses to give them time to sink in.
* Don't condescend to me by pointing out when your opponent drops an argument. I probably recognized the drop, and if I didn't it doesn't help your cause to highlight my ignorance.
* Use humor and gravitas effectively. I'm a human being not a robot; find ways to make an emotional bridge to your argument. Why should I care?

 

I am a high school history teacher with extensive international traveling experience. I have been involved with Speech and debate programs since 2003 and I was an individual events speaker when I was in high school. When I am judging I look for excellence in the following categories:

-Organization

-Research with facts

-Presenting approprate clash

-Speaking clearly

Whenever I judge I always try my best to flow the argument and offer lots of feedback on my ballots. I expecially like when students present their arguments with historical examples.

 

General advice for students who I am judging:

-Please do not spread arguments so fast that I cannot keep up with your words

-Please define all terms so I am sure you are knowlegeable in what you are discussing

-Please maintain a respectful attitude toward your opponent(s) throughout the round

LD
Judging Experience: 14 Years
High school coach, 10 years
High school policy debate, 4 years.


Overview: in general, I prefer traditional value debate in LD. My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc.
I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Be a debater, not a competitive librarian.


Plans: I will accept cases which offer some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being different from Policy—I don't think very narrow and specific plans are effective in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with something squirrely (and potentially abusive), that’s not ok. With that in mind, it's debaters' responsibility to point out that their opponent is running squirrely/abusive plan.


Kritiks: I'll accept them.


Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.


Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing.


Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).

Background: 2 years LD for Copper Hills High School, judging/coaching after high school, no college experience

I was more of a traditional debater, but I understand progressive pretty well. I probably won’t connect the dots if you’re just stating authors or shells, so make sure to explain any and every argument you’re using. I don’t have a preference to what you’re running as long as you’re explaining it well and clashing with your opponent’s case.

I’m a flow judge, so your biggest concern should be clash, organization, clarity, etc. If it’s not making it onto my flow, then I’m probably not weighing it.

Weighing is telling me WHY it matters. Just because you win the argument doesn't mean that I care. Tell me why I should care. You should be addressing this throughout the debate so the judge isn't doing your work for you.

EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. Once you extend, I'll write it down. Save time and keep organized. You should also be weighing the argument while extending it, instead of just re-reading the same taglines.

Specifics:

Speed: Spreading/Spewing is ok, but slow down on tags. If you want me to understand your case, then make sure you’re slowing down for the main ideas. I’ll say “clear” if needed, so let me know if you’re uncomfortable with that.

Prep: Time yourselves, but I’ll also keep time.

Progressive (CP/Kritiks/Theory/DA/etc.): Didn't run much of it personally, but definitely enjoy judging these rounds. Since I’m not familiar with specific authors, shells, etc., make sure to slow down on tags, explain it in a way that I can see that YOU areunderstanding it (not just spreading a prepped document), and weigh it.

Traditional: Although logic is great, make sure to have cards/evidence to support your arguments. WEIGH.

Body Language:I’m also usually flowing, so no need to be nervous about eye contact.

I look forward to judging you! If you have any further questions, feel free to email me caoanhp@gmail.com.

Speed : Don't spread (or in most cases spew) I will take away speaks

Theory : Despise it. However, for some resolutions it is necessary- make it good theory not bad theory

Framework : EXTEND FW through out the round- don't assume I will do it for you.

Any form of Progressive LD Debate : Leave it in policy, I want a traditional case,

Cross-X : Don't be abusive, I'll dock speaker points if you do.

Value/Criterion : Emphasize it.

Using the Law : Any and all Supreme Court Cases better be explained: facts, outcome, how it supports your argument.

Time : My time is final (also there's this really cool app on the App Store called LD Timer, check it out)

Misc : No abusive arguments (rape is good, people with mental disorders need to die, anarchy is the way to go)

          Don't steal prep time

          Be kind to your opponent

          Don't ask me to disclose

          Don't be profane

          Make me laugh

          Make me cry (in a good way, like your argument touched me- do not attempt battery)

          S I G N  P O S T

          Don't care if you stand or sit

          You can walk around as long, as your walking has a purpose

          Tell me to flow something through, I won't do it for you.

Ask any other questions you have in the debate round,

As always, have fun :)

 

          

 

I consider myself to be 'tabula rasa' aka 'clean slate and will vote for anything if there is reason to vote for it on the flow. Weighing and key voters are very important with me. I was an LDer from 2009-2013 and coached from 2013-2014.

I am not a fan of spreading these days (haven't judged or coached regularly for years); however, I am okay if you choose to spread anyway-- it's 'at your own risk'. If I cannot understand you I will say 'clear' once and if you do not adjust I will stop flowing what you are reading.

Feel free to ask me about anything more specific.

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

I am very new to judging. I judge for my son's team because he does VLD. Since I am new to this I have a low tolerance for speed and expect debaters to extend, weigh, and impact for me so I can make a clean, easy decision. I have no understanding of progressive arguments; however, if you are running a lay counter plan I can understand that. If you want my ballot keep it slow, clear, and move straight down the flow. Keep in mind I also don't understand a lot of debate jargon so explain everything.

I debated Lincoln Douglas debate for 4 years at Catalina Foothills High School and was a policy debater for 2 years at Vanderbilt University. Below I'll list my thoughts on a variety of judging related questions. If you have further queries feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Overview

I try to leave my predispositions at the door when I enter a room to judge a round. However the tabula rasa ideal is simply not realistic. Every judge comes into the round with biases, beliefs, etc., and no one can truly divorce these from their judging entirely. Below I will endeavour to state what my predispositions are, and what competitors should strive to do in front of me.

Rules

There are a three basic rules of debate that I believe must be followed in any given round. 1. There are prescribed times for the affirmative and the negative 2. In every round each competitor has a set side 3. The resolution is the subject of the debate. Beyond those the rules must be set via theory. If you break one of the rules above the only thing your opponent has to do for me to vote you down is point it out and say why it is bad. This not only includes overt things like reading on for a minute after your time is up, but also more subtle violations like card clipping. Do not do things to break these basic rules. The last precept, the resolution as the topic of debate has become unmoored in recent years, a development I do not particularly like. I will still listen to your case if it does not stick within the bounds of the resolution, but I will be sympathetic to arguments about why this practice destroys education/makes debate so unfair that people leave the activity. Lastly, though courtesy and respect are not rules of debate, I expect a sembalance of decorum out of the competitors in front of me. I know cross examinations can get heated, I know emotions run high in debate rounds, but those facts are not excuses for be unduly rude to your opponents. Be respectful, be courteous, be nice. Simple rules to follow, yet competitors often fail to do so.

Speed

I'm fine with spreading as long as it is clear, but I am a bit out of practice discerning it seeing as I have not debated in half a year. I will say clear once if I cannot understand you and after that I will stop flowing. Anything I do not flow I will not weigh in the round. All that being said, just because I am okay with spreading does not mean that I particularly enjoy it or that you have to do it to win. I much prefer a good debate to a fast one.

Progressive Arguments

I will vote on any argument run as long as it is done well and it's clear what you are saying (take into account the addendum on non-resolutional arguments above). I am not particularly well versed in critical literature so if you are running a kritik please explain it to me well. If you are reading something particularly unconventional I will listen, but you still need to win arguments as to why I should. Read what's best for you I will try to do my best in judging it.

Framework

I will decide on who won the value debate and then who won the criterion debate and then weigh the impacts under whatever framework won. Normally this is beneficial to whichever side's framework I choose, but that can be mitigated by impacting back to your opponent's framework, something I highly recommend doing.

Argumentation

Too often people read claims, extend claims, and tell me I should vote based on claims. I expect that when an argument is made it has a warrant, and when you extend that argument you extend the warrant too. 

Impact Framing

In general I find high magnitude low probability impacts less compelling than more probable impacts, but I will vote on either as long as you make a case for why I should. Please use the 2NR and 2AR in particuar to frame the round.

Theory

Blippy theory is bad for debate in my opinion. I don't like voting on theory unless it is clearly justified. If you feel as though you need to run theory you should show clear, in-round abuse. Debate is an educational activity at its core, it is what differentiates debate from other types of competitive activities. As such I find education related reasons much more compelling in theory debates than fairness related reasons in and of themselves. However, I also think that having a fair debate can be key to this educational activity. If you are going to read fairness voters don't simply say fairness is the voter, explain why fairness matters for the educational value of debate.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points solely to reflect how well someone has spoken in the round not whether they won or debated better. This gives the requisite weight to speaking well in LD in my opinion. I tend to use a scale of 30-25. Anything less than a 25 means there was something really wrong with what you did in the round (you were probably rude/disrespectful).

If you have questions about a round I judged fell free to email me questions at boaz.m.cohon@vanderbilt.edu.

Assistant Debate coach at Grapevine HS, TX
Coaching since 2010 - primarily LD, Congress, Public Forum
Competed in LD as a high school student

Speed: You can speak at the pace that you prefer, but I will yell clear if you're going too fast.

Evidence: Full citations, with a clear explanation of your evidence. Please signpost.

Flex prep: I don't like it.

Theory: Not my favorite, but I have voted on it and at times it was quite relevant to the round.

Philosophy: If it is really esoteric, make sure you explain the importance of it. Personally, I like hearing Philosophy in LD rounds.

Crystallization: The last speech should be purely crystallization (no line by line). Make sure you're weighing and tell me why you won the round.

Value: I weigh value and criterion clash HEAVILY in the debate round.

LD:

This is my 8th year judging LD; I am a former competitor and a former LD coach. I'm currently working on a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Arizona State with a focus on the development of universal vaccines against influenza and enjoy giving back to the speech and debate community.

I prefer traditional argumentation, but that's all it is: a preference. I'm fine with, and welcome, speed and progressive argumentation (K's, DA's, CP's, perf, T, you can run whatever you want). Make sure you make good use of crystallization an key voters in the 2NR/2AR to ensure that I'm not missing whatever you feel is most important for my consideration.

Clear authors and taglines are appreciated, add me to the email chain/use the file share, and (specifically for novices) don't forget to crystallize, impact calc, extend, etc. Haikus are cool.

Policy:

See my LD paradigm but throw out the traditional argumentation thing (though there was one round I judged where the teams agreed to use LD style argumentation which was simultaneously disorienting and awesome). It's been a while since the days when I judged policy regularly. I didn't' do policy when I used to compete, and the activity has evolved so much in the couple of years since I regularly judged it. Bear with me, add me to the email chain, and feel free to ask me before round if you have any specific questions about anything.

Few tournaments before, still very novice in judging.  I will try to flow.

Speed - don't spread, if I can't understand what you are saying, how can I vote for you?

Framework - I like structure, say what you're going to say, say it, then tell me what you just said.

Voting issues - make them clear

Who wins?  The winner of the most arguments in the round and/or the person who persuaded me more of her/her position overall.  Will I go home and talk about your case with my family over dinner because it was insightful, moving, funny, thought provoking... or will I be so confused by theories/analysis that I didn't get what you were trying to convince me of?

Don't ask me to reveal the results.  I will take time to put my notes into something that I hope will help you.

Clearly summarize how you address your opponent's points, and how their attack on your points doesn't hold.

Be passionate but under control and respectful - always respectful.  You may have the best case in the world but if you are rude, unkind, disrespectful, you will LOSE every time.

 

 

I'm Judy and I participated in 4 years of LD debate for The Meadows School. I recently graduated from Wellesley College.

Short Version:

"If you have no h8rs, you are doing something wrong." Tim Alderete

K's and Policy style arguments in general are Kool

I have a higher threshold for bad theory "This probably means you think I’m 'Interventionist.'"

However I do not mind theory debates as long as they are good theory debates (i.e. pls don't run date theory in front of me)

"I can handle the speed" but with online tournaments please keep spreading to a minimum.

Long version:

I like K's but if you don't understand it don't run it. If you can't explain it then there's no way your opponent or I will understand, thus I'm more likely to drop you. As my coach Tim Alderete said, "Good K debates are some of the best debates I've ever judged. Bad K debates are some of the worst debates I've judged."

I won't extend arguments for you. When you extend your arguments you must explain the warrant or else I won't give you credence.

UPDATED 12/27/2017

I've been out of debate for about 2 years now, so please go about 75% of your max-speed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I competed both locally and nationally in LD for 4 years in high school and was a policy debater at ASU for 1 year. I try to be as tab as possible, so run whatever you want. Debate can be a game or a forum or really what ever you want, just tell me how you want me to evaluate the round and I'll do so. Do what you want and debate well if you want my ballot.

I default to evaluating the round in order of theory, kritiks, case. That being said, I will evaluate the round in whatever order you tell me (as long as it's warranted!!!!). I'm totally willing to evaluate Ks before theory if you explain why I should.

For the love of all things holy, please impact back to something...anything. I will be very sad if you're making a great arg but not giving me any mechanism with which to weigh it. This means read and win a role of the ballot with a k, read voters on theory, defend your framework, etc.

Kritiks:Yes please! I ran a lot of Ks in high school and was a K debater in policy. I'm pretty well versed in baudrillard, antiblackness/afropess/wilderson, virillio, butler, marxism, psychoanalysis and fem rage so I feel comfortable evaluating most anything. PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THINGS HOLY AND GOOD IN THE WORLD, do not run a K in front of me if you do not know it--I won't intervene against you if you're winning it, but it will probably hurt your speaks and I will feel sad. If it's really dense, slow down a little for tags (go like 70% of your max speed). I'm a fan of performance ks as long as you give me a firm way to decide the round. Be clear on your ROB.

Theory/T: I'm fine with it, I'll vote on it. I have a pretty low threshold for theory--run it if you want. I'm fine with blippy theory arguments and if you frame them as an independent voter, I'll go for it. If you want to really win on theory there are a few things.

1. Please make the internal links to your voters clear in your standards.
2. Tell me--very coherently--what to do about RVIs (I don't have a default)
3. Please please don't make me intervene on theory. This means weigh between competing shells!!! If you weigh theory well, I will vote the way you want me to.

Extensions: Be clear and tell me why it matters. I don't need you to extend everything in your last speech, just show me where your winning and why it's more important than where you're losing. Honestly, if you're winning, and you know you're winning (like they dropped theory or didn't respond to/try to win under your rob) extend that and sit down. I'll vote on the highest level of debate in the easiest place.

Plans/CPs: go for it.

Other stuff: If you want to have a util/deon debate, that's fine with me. I was really into traditional LD when I first started and I know classical/traditional philosophy well. I'll evaluate whatever you give me. Just be clear as to why you're winning what.

Speaks: Probably on the higher end. I'll average 28. Be strategic and run cool stuff and run it well I'll give you higher speaks. If you're really offensive (anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, etc) I'm not opposed to giving you a 0.

Key to my ballot: Spend a simple 20 or 30 seconds at the end of your last speech explaining how I should break down the debate. Tell me where to go first and why you're winning there. Make it really simple for me to fill out my ballot. If you want to win, tell me why.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round or find me/message me on facebook.

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

I am new to judging LD, but I have judged a few tournaments this year. I am familiar with most of the concepts you'll be debating, but I'd prefer you clearly explain how your contentions support your framework. You need to develop your arguments throughout the round and clearly state why those arguments give you offense in the round. State key voters in your last speech: make clear the arguments that I need to consider at the end.   I prefer a natural speaking rate with clear signposting. Define terms that you think I may not know. Approach this debate like you are debating for the general public.

Contact info: jeff@immigrationissues.com

I coach debate so I am comfortable with most debate styles. I coach LD and am more familiar with LD, but also did policy in college and assist in coaching it now. I am qualified to judge both events.

Debate is fun. I value wit and humor. Debate is educational. I value scissor-sharp logic. Debate is a chance for high school students to make radical arguments for change. Don't be afraid to be yourself and express your opinion in any method you choose.

I like well-developed, persuasive and interesting cases with strong internal links and warrants and interesting and novel approaches to the resolution.

I believe that debate is, at its core, a thought experience. As a debater, you get to approach each debate round as your debate round. You get to set the rules. You get to debate what you find educational and valuable. To me that is the greatest thing about debate. To that extent, I like creative arguments and the arguments do not have to be conventional. However, you have to persuade me that there is a reason to vote for you, and you have to be prepared to justify that what you are debating is fair and educational to your opponent. To that extent, your opponent also gets to set the rules and play the game the way he or she wants to as well. That means that I am open to theory/topicality arguments on either side in order to set the ground rules for the debate.

I value cross-examination. It shows how a debater thinks on his or her feet, how well he or she understands the resolution and case and how well he or she uses rhetoric and logic. Use it effectively. I want you to answer your opponent's questions and not blow off cross ex. I flow cross-ex and consider statements made in CX as binding.

I will vote on textual arguments, Ks, policy arguments, theory, narratives and performative debate as long as you present an overall persuasive case.

In terms of layering, Theory/Topicality is evaluated as the first layer in debate. I have to first determine that the game is being played fairly before I consider the substance of the arguments. To that extent, I am open to theory arguments. If you are going to make theory arguments, please set forth an interpretation, standards and voters. Don't just claim your opponent is being unfair. If you are are arguing against the theory argument, please provide a counterinterpretation or show me that no counterinterpretation is necessary because you meet the interpretation and do not violate. I am open to RVI arguments and will evaluate those arguments, but only if you prove the theory is frivolous, time suck or strat suck. So RVIs will be considered but you have to show me that the theory argument, itself, was abusive. I will not consider an RVI just because you blip it out. Neg does not get reciprocity on RVIs.

After theory, I next evaluate ROTB, ROTJ and framework arguments. ROTB and ROTJ tells me that there is a role that I play that transcends the debate round. As such, I evaluate ROTB and ROTJ equally with other more traditional framework arguments. If you tell me what my role is, I will accept that as my role. That means the opponent has to come up with a counter ROTB, or show how he or she accesses your ROTB or how your ROTB is somehow bad or that your framework is superior. Same with arguments that you tell me are a priori, prior questions or decision rules. If you tell me there are, justify it, provide rationale. It is then up to your opponent to counter that. Your counter ROTB can be as simple as you should vote for the better debater, but don't just drop it because you assume that traditional framework (weighing case) comes first.

After framework, I will evaluate the contention level. Ks, narratives and performative arguments will be evaluated equally with other arguments but you have to provide the layering for me and tell me how to evaluate those arguments in the round.

Great weighing of arguments is your best route to high speaks. Don't just extend args. Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round and how those arguments interact with the other side. I will evaluate all arguments that are not blatantly offensive. But it is up to you to tell my why those arguments are voters. The worst rounds are rounds where there is no weighing, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped. 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. I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend an 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. And, don't go for everything. The best debaters are the ones who are able to succinctly crystalize the key issues in the round and collapse down to those key issues and tell me why they win the debate.

Kritiks: I love them and I love how they are progressing in debate. This includes narratives/performance arguments. Some of the best debates I have seen are good perfomative Kritiks. I will evaluate Ks equally with other positions. However, I have a few ground rules for Ks. First, if you are going to do a K, clearly explain your alt, ROTB and methodology and do not stray from it. It is a pet peeve when someone runs a K and then cannot justify it in CX or is snarky about answering questions about it in CX. If you are criticizing something, you have to be able to explain it under pressure. Second pet peeve: Your method/performance must go in the same direction as the K. If you are running Bifo (semiocapitalism) and then spread without giving your entire speech document to your opponent, I find that to be a performative contradiction. This will not end well for you. On a K explain whether you claim pre-fiat or post-fiat solvency and clearly how your discourse preempts other arguments in the round and weigh your discourse against your opponents framework. If you are doing a narrative or performative argument, you should be able to clearly articulate your methodology for your performance in the round. I know that I bring my own biases in the round, but I try my best to leave them at the door of the debate room and approach narratives and performative arguments with a blank slate. I appreciate hearing your voice in the round. If you are running fem rage or queer rage I want to hear it in the round. I want to hear your voice. That, to me, is the point of using the debate space for performance and narrative. So, I expect you to be able to clearly articulate your methodology and narrative and answer questions about how your opponent interacts with the methodology in the round. If you run a narrative but fumble over how that narrative and methodology works in the debate space, I find it less credible.

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all evaluated. If you're running a DA, make sure the link debate and impacts are clear. Make sure you are doing good impact calculus on timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversability, etc. I will consider all impact scenarios. It is up to your opponent to tell me why those impact scenarios are outweighed.

Spikes, tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments: I am not a fan of "tricks," spikes and blippy arguments and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for underview blips and extensions of spikes and 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. That means if your opponent has a halfway coherent response to them I am likely to drop the argument. I know that tricks are a new and sexy thing in debate. I just hate them.

Speed: I can flow speed. However, I like to be included in the email chain or pocketbox. Also if your analytics are not on the document, I will try my best to keep up, but don't blame me if you spread through them and I miss something. It is up to you to make the argument explicitly enough that I flow it and extend it. I like to review the evidence, so if you speed, I will follow along as I flow. Make sure the tags and card tags are are slightly slower and are clear. My issue is most often with enunciation, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. No speed at the cost of understanding.

Points--(Note that these points have changed as of the ASU 2018 tournament)

30--You have a chance of winning this tournament and are one of the best debaters I have seen in a while.

29.0-29.5 - You are in the top 10% of the tournament and will definitely break.

28.5.-29.0 - You should break at this tournament.

28.0-28.5 - My default speaks. This is for a good and above average debater.

27.5-28.0 - You are average compared to other debaters in the tournament.

27.0-27.5 You are learning and have significant areas of improvement.

<27 This is the lowest I will go. You have done something unfair, offensive or unethical in the round.

I have previously debated in my early high school years

 

- I prefer traditional debates over the more progressive ones

- I'm a strick flow judge so make sure you have a good road map

- I don't flow cross-examination

- I can handle spreading however, if it becomes unclear or too fast,  I will say "clear"

- I prefer extensions when there is a full argument to it rather than just addressing it

- If you say anything racist, sexist, or offensive, I will drop you from the round

- If you make good puns I may possibly reward you with more speaker points

- Be nice to each other

- Food makes me happy :)

Meadows Update: I'm not that familiar with the topic so please don't expect me to know the literature without full explanation within the round.

I debated for Meadows in Las Vegas, NV for four years and attended the TOC my senior year in 2016; I am currently a junior at the George Washington University. I’ll listen to whatever you want as long as it is logical and you make good arguments. Please explain arguments, weigh, and be nice. Speed is fine.

Kritiks: I really like K debates. I am pretty well versed in feminist literature and ran a lot of oppression-based arguments in high school. I think the best kritiks are the ones that link to the plan and the advantages and emphasize how the alternative and the link specifically interact with the plan as well. Kritiks are more persuasive if you explain how your method/ starting point (i.e the alternative) is a better way to deal with the aff and solves better than the affs impacts by proving that their impacts don't matter, and the affs impacts are constructed in a problematic way. Your role of the ballot also needs to appeal to pedagogy/ education in order to precede other arguments. But, just because you read a K doesn't mean I will understand it or vote for it, so please explain it well.

Performance: I would rather see a debate on gender or race in the context of the resolution, which in my opinion are more educational to real-world impacts. I probably sway more towards framework, but I will vote on performance arguments if you provide good reasons for K>T.

Policy: Counterplans and Disads are fine. Counterplans have to have a solvency advocate and it must be competitive meaning that it is a disad to the aff that the counterplan avoids. Permutations have to have a net benefit.

Theory: I am not a huge fan of theory, however, I will vote on theory if I have to. I do not like frivolous theory, and will definitely not vote on it. I default to drop the arg, competing interps, and no RVIs. Please slow down on interpretations. If I do not catch it I will not vote on it.

Topicality: Topicality is different than theory in the sense that it challenges the rule of debate through substance. I default to drop the debater and no RVIs.

Tricks: I don't find these super persuasive or strategic - usually common sense answers these pretty well.

Framework: I do not understand as much philosophy as others, so if you are going to read dense phil please explain it well.

Speaker Points: I will start off the round with an average of a 28 and adjust it throughout the round. If you read any offensive arguments, you'll probably get bad speaks and lose.

Other Notes:

- I don't necessarily consider flashing cases a part of prep time, but if you take longer than a minute I'll start to deduct your time.

- Flex prep is fine (it means asking questions during prep time, not taking more prep)

- If you have any questions, please email me at kaplansara12@gmail.com.

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 like a well organized speaker, those that come into the room late, change their shoes, fix their hair....not so much.  

I appreciate the speaker that makes unusual assessments or provides unique remedies. 

Respecting the opponent while arguing their contention is better than insulting their person. Debate doesn't mean personal attacks free-for-all.

The burden of proof is what is relevant, I evalute all the situations - if you noticed a missed arguement of your opponent don't assume I caught it, point it out.

Spreading? As long as you speak slowly, feel free...ha ha ha

I have been an LD/Speech judge for 3 years, I prefer traditional LD over kritiks/plans/counterplans. I'll let kritiks slide but once you get into plans/counterplans I am unable to provide you adequate feedback and judging. I'll try to understand and work with it but if you're spreading too, forget it.

Timing: Time yourself. Know the times for each section. Keep track of prep. I will only allow flex prep if you ask.

Spreading: if you don't keep me in the loop (share your AC/R NC/R etc.) and you're not the slightest bit intelligible it's on you. I will not try to hear everything and fill in the blanks for you. Do it and do it right or don't do it at all. Preferably though, don't spread.

Judging: Speaker points are based on behavior during the round, clarity of speech, and somewhat on following LD rules. I flow. I do not disclose unless told by the people in charge to do so. I will only offer feedback if asked. At the end of the round tell me who won. I judge based on the effectiveness of the case, ergo, uphold V/VC through your contentions and argue accordingly.

Overall: I'm rusty though because I haven't had time to help judge this semester, so beginning rounds please bear with me.

TLDR: I have judged LD for the past 3 years. I haven't been judging this past semester so bear with me at the start. Time yourself, don't spread, key voter issues at the end, don't be disrespectful. Have fun :)

I am a former student who did debate for four years in high school doing policy and lincoln douglas debate. Feel free to run anything you want, just make sure to be clear and concise with the arguments you are making and how you are responding to other arguments being made. Definitely tell me and your opponent what you plan on speaking before each time you speak. 

Speed

I am mostly fine with spreading. My issue is with the clarity of what you are saying, so make sure you do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Also make sure not to speak at your fastest possible at the beginning; speed up at you go along. If I find myself not being able to understand what you are saying, I will say clear once; any times mentioned recurringly will result in a loss of speaker points. When reading taglines, contentions, and authors names, please make sure to slow down and emphasize what you are saying as well. Clear and enthusiatic rhetoric will earn you higher speaker points.

Ettiquete 

Please be coureteous and respectful to your opponents. I will allow time for flashing over files and/or passing papers. I expect debaters to be managing their own time in round, including prep time. Only be asking direct questions to each other during cross examinations and do not attempt to intimidate the opponent. You may continue asking questions if the opponent does not have a sufficient response. Shaking each others hands is a sign of respect. Be sure to ask if the judge and the opponent is ready before speaking. Please do not use discriminatory language when debating. Good humor is always appreciated.

Framework 

Be sure to make convincing arguments showing why we should adopt a specfic ethical framework over the opponent's; make some kind of comparison and make sure i know these so I can evaluate each ethical paradigm. Be sure to weigh arguments and provide concrete evidence for everything you say. Ultimately how you weigh and crystallize the debate in correspondence to your framework is how I will be judging the winner of the debate round, so putting some time aside to go over why you are winning will be useful. Evaluating the criterion is very helpful, and will make it clear for me who is winning the debate, especially if you are running a more traditional debate. 

If you are running a progressive debate please be sure to be familiar with the literature you are reading; it takes away from the debate if you are reading arguments that go over your head. This ties in to the educational standpoint of the debate, which is also very important to address. Why are you reading these arguments and why should we listen? Again summarizing what you have established in round will be pertinent to the execution of your debate.

The Ballot

I will do my best to flow every argument you make. Be clear when you are cross-applying evidence or debating the line-by-line. The ballot will ultimately come from the arguments I see on the flow. What I will be looking for are impacts, and how each side weighed the impacts in round. It is not about how many impacts each side solves for, but about what each impact entails. Link debates will be important to weighing if impacts will happen, if a link is reasonably argued against and not sufficiently addressed, I will no longer weigh the impact of the argument. For the most part I am tabula rasa and will only weight what is being said in the round without any predisposition to any arguments, so logical argumentation is critical. 

 

 

For LD I look for a strong value/criterion that is established and clearly connected to the contentions. I also like it when a debater attacks the opponents V/C, but also shows how their case achieves it. Clear clash and overview is important. 

Overview I'm a pretty vanilla judge. I don't judge on a regular basis so don't depend on a thorough knowledge of the topic or the literature.

Experience

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. I've judged one year. I've read some Marx but otherwise haven't delved too deeply into philosophy. I'm studying computer science in school.

Rounds judged 2013-2014 season: 10

Rounds judged 2014-2015 season: 8

Rounds judged 2015-2016 season: 0

Arguments Framework – Try to keep the flow organized. Theory – I don't mind voting on this as long as it's warranted and impacted well. T – I like to have two competing interpretations to evaluate.

No hate speech, eg gender impact turns.

Style Speed – Balance speed and clarity.

Prep time – Try not to steal prep.

Flashing – Just be reasonable with flashing.

Tag team – It's okay but try not to take over.

Speaks – I think the 25 to 30 scale is comparable to a 0 to 5 scale.

LD: I did progressive LD in high school (2009-2013), and as such I'm ok with speed and most arguments, though I am a bit rusty as I haven't done much debate-related things in the interim. I will evaluate a round depending on the predominant framework. Please justify your extensions and give some relative impact analysis at the end.

• I will not give someone a win based solely on value/kriterion debate. Given the winning framework, the win will go to whomever can best link into the framework with their contentions.
• If you are spreading, please slow down on the taglines, authors and important points.
• I'm fine with flex prep.
• I am terrible at keeping time, so if you want me to give hand signals I will but be warned I may slightly off.
• I have a high threshold for theory. Please, please don't run it just to waste your opponent's time, it's not good debate.
• I welcome critiques, but they require links to the topic, and I generally don't buy alts that amount to "raising awareness" 
• I will also not vote on "reverse oppression"/imperialism good type arguments
• If you're unsure, ask me before the round starts.

If you have any specific questions, please ask in round.

I don't disclose. I don't ask for evidence. I don't accept post-rounding. The round should be controlled by debaters, and anything that you feel is important to earning my ballot needs to be addressed in the round. Once completed, the round is out of sight and mind. Any critiques I have will go on the ballot. No one's opinion is worth an additional ten minutes of hearing themselves talk.

While I am flexible in terms of argumentation style, for PF and LD, I prefer traditional arguments. It's super easy to rest on jargon and to vomit a case. Brevity is becoming a lost skill in debate, and I like seeing it. If you think you can win on progressive arguments regardless, please present them.

In Policy and PF, I judge almost entirely on impact and framework. In LD, VC gets a little more weight, naturally. Voters are super helpful. Anything you drop is weighed against you.

Topicality is annoying, so please avoid running it. If you think you can swing Theory, do your darnedest. Kritiks are cool, too.

If you want to do speed, that's fine, but anything I can't understand can't go on my flow, and I'm not gonna correct you. You're in charge of your own performance.

FLASHING COMES OUT OF PREP, unless done before the 1AC. Also, if your preflow takes more than five minutes, I will dock speaks for each additional minute.

Clashing and some aggressiveness is fine, but if you're scoffing or snickering at any opponent, I'm going to be especially motivated to find reasons to drop you, obviously. Even if I like your argument or pick you up, I'm probably going to give you really low speaks. Respect the fact that your opponents also work hard to be in the same room as you.

When I call "time," nothing you say gets added to the flow. Simply stop speaking, because it's not going to be counted. No exceptions.

Most of all, if you have me as your judge, relax. It is debate. You're not defusing a bomb. You're not performing neurosurgery. You'll make it out of the round alive, and you'll probably go on to debate many other rounds. You want to do well, and a lot goes into that. You will be okay, regardless of how I vote.

Miscellaneous items that won't decide around, but could garner higher speaks

-Uses of the words, and various thereof, "flummoxed," "cantankerous," "trill," "inconceivable, "verisimilitude," and "betwixt"

-Quotes from television series Community, Steven Universe, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, and 30 Rock

-Knowing the difference between "asocial" and "antisocial"

-Rhyming

Rosemary Muldoon

Lincoln/Douglas Debate Paradigm

Salpointe Catholic High School

 

My name is Rosemary Muldoon and I am a judge for Salpointe Catholic High School in Tucson, Arizona.  My daughter has competed on Lincoln/Douglas Debate for the past two years, and I have judged for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.  For my professional career I am a Realtor and Associate Broker.  While this isn’t debate it has given me the experiences of understanding argument and the art of negotiation.

 

What you should know about me as a judge

While this year is the first year I have judged, I have been involved in many pre-elim rounds and outrounds on the Arizona Circuit.  I have judged at four tournaments, judging an average of six debates at each tournament.  I understand the process of Lincoln/Douglas Debate and how it’s done.

 

Progressive Debate vs. Traditional Debate

I prefer traditional debate but am open to progressive argumentation when it’s really well explained.  If you are choosing to run cases that include theory, counterplans, kritiks, Disadvantages, etc, understand you have the burden of making them super clear to me if you want me to evaluate them.  The safest route is to have a Lincoln/Douglas Debate that debates framework and contentions.  That the type of debate that I prefer to hear.  Regardless of what kind of debate you choose to have I highly encourage all debaters to have voter issues in their last speech.  Explain to me where you believe you are winning on the debate.  If I agree that you are ahead there, you’ll likely get my vote.

 

Speed

You can read at a moderate speed.  I am not interested in hearing a debater ‘spread’ their argument.  Read quickly, but not more than a little quicker than conversational speed.

 

Flow

I flow the debate but only take down taglines and authors.  After that I’m listening to the card and writing down anything from it I hear that I feel is significant.  The best way to help my flow is signpost before the speech and during the speech.  Tell me exactly where I should be putting things.  The more work you do for me, the easier it is to get my vote.

 

My Ballot

My ballot comes from the flow and the impacts that come behind it.  Again, the best way to help with this is to make a big deal out of voter issues.  The best debaters take the debate out of my hands and make it clear as day what happened in round.  Where debaters get frustrated is when they don’t extrapolate what happened in the debate, leaving their judge to do the thinking for them.

 

Background: 4 years LD at Brophy College Prep in Phoenix, AZ
Graduated 2016

krishnamuruganaz@gmail.com for your email chains

Truthfully, I think I'm basically a fossil in this community. I graduated years ago and don't really compete in college. I judge maybe two tournaments out of the year at most. At this point, my paradigm has become a series of opinions about debate that maybe not alot of people share.

Anyways, first things first: DONT SHAKE MY HAND

I honestly hate when people do that.

Actual paradigm stuff:

Personally, I don't think the judge is an educator. Really, all I'm contractually obligated to do is listen to you speak for an hour and then sign a ballot. I'm a glorified scoreboard. Any educating I do occurs after I sign and submit the ballot. That basically means I'm gonna evaluate your arguments as points. Whether or not you score higher points depend on if you link to your framework well and have solid impacts. If have a solid story from why I care about your framework to why that means I vote for you, then I'll probably vote for you. I'm pretty good at understanding arguments, but dontd assume I'll get everything. If you don't explain your argument clearly, I'll be sad. I really just don't wanna think. If I don't have to think, I'll like you more.

Speed is maybe fine? Given a speech doc, I can keep up easy. But I'm an ancient 20 something years old now and I have 0 incentive to be able to keep up with your speed now

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kritiks are cool. Run your crazy shit, just don't read any offensive stuff.

Theory is dumb but I'll vote on it. That being said, I'm of the opinion that theory as it's run now is more abusive as opposed to actually checking abuse. If I can find an excuse not to vote on theory, I won't vote on theory. I default to reasonability and RVIs

PICs are stupid but honestly kinda funny to listen to. I'll totally vote on one with no regrets.

Tricks are bad for debate. Fuck you if you read these.

If I didn't mention something, just assume I'm cool with it.

Speaks:

25-26: not great, missing extensions, super unclear, probably undercovered a bunch, made me sad because it doesn't seem like you care about the activity

26-27: same as the above except you didn't make me sad because you like debate and it's obvious you're trying

27-28: a few mistakes here and there but good extensions and a clear understanding of what arguments you were going for. Most people probably end up here

28-29: quality extensions and some really interesting arguments. Tbh probably the same as 27-28 except I thought your case was cool and unique

29-30: I think you're gonna go far in the tournament. Wrapped up everything neatly in a bow for me and I don't have to think at all. also probably gets a smiley face on your ballot

The best debates are those in which both sides ask good questions.

I debated for Chandler High for four years (1 LD/3CX). Currently a freshman at Rice but I no longer debate. 

If you're paperless, I would like to be included in the email chain: akn5@rice.edu

I have judged 0 rounds this year, so assume that I have no topical knowledge. 

tl;dr:

1. My experience with LD is limited, but just debate well/logically and we'll be fine.
2. I did policy for 3 years, so I should be good with more progressive LD debate if that's your thing.
3. Don't be mean.

 

- I'm okay with spreading. If you want me to flow it, make sure you're not incomprehensible. I'll say "clear" twice before I just start missing stuff. Please slow down on your contentions and tags.

- Clash is good, especially on framework. 

- Quality > Quanity. I dislike super blippy arguments, so make sure your args are fully fleshed out and thoroughly explained. 

- Don't make me do the work for you. Weigh your arguments in the context of the framework and give a nice overview at the end of the round so I know what I should be voting on and why you should win. 

- Extend your arguments (but don't just say "extend this"). If I don't hear about it in the last speech, I'll assume you're not going for it and won't evaluate it when making my decision. 

- I have a high threshold for theory. Don't use it as a time skew.

- I enjoy Ks, but make sure you know what you're talking about rather than just reading some high theory nonsense to confuse your opponent. If it's super dense literature, be sure to explain it clearly. 

- CPs/DAs are fine.

- Roadmaps and signposting are great, especially if you have off case arguments. 

- Speaks will start at a 28. Clarity/organization will help you, being mean to your opponent or saying blatantly offensive things will hurt you immensely.

I am the assistant debate coach for Layton High School. My background has primarily involved policy debate in high school and college. However, our students have moved into LD and PF so I find myself judging and supporting those events more. I usually judge more than a hundred rounds of debate each year spread out between the various debate events. I have switched to OneNote for flowing. If you provide your contact information (specifically email addresses) I will send you my flows after I have concluded the ballot. You are then welcome to discuss my flows and decision at anytime.


Jump/Email Chain
I expect to be included in all jumps and email chains. You can email me cxjudge@hotmail.com. As a rule of thumb, I usually do not review evidence until the end of the round and I use my flow as a filter to what I think you introduced into the debate. As of 1/2017 my preference is to use pocket box or something similar that just allows everyone to download the file after upload.

Timing
I expect you to keep track of your time so that I do not have to call out time remaining during a speech. I will do it if asked by a student and I will not hold it against you, but I do find it distracting from the speech. With that said, I track all time in the debate. Consider it the "official" time for the round. I work from my official time... that means when my time shows your speech is done, I stop flowing regardless if you keep talking for another 10 seconds. I usually allow students to answer CX questions put to them during the actual time of cross examination, even if this means the answer takes another 10 seconds or so in the round for a proper answer.

Speaks
I used to not care much and would routinely just award everyone 30's. However, I learned the folly of my ways after repeated conversations with tabrooms. Nowadays, everyone starts at 28 and can go up or down from there depending upon their performance. I think of a speaker's capabilities in the following categories: organization, clash, delivery (speed, clarity, tone - i.e. not yelling), argument development, technical skill, strategy and creativity. If you need a lengthy explanation of these categories there is probably something missing in your experience to the event. I am happy to briefly explain this to any competitor if they believe it will help their performance during the round I evaluate.

Prep Time
Traditionally, I have been very lax and generous with prep time. However, I find myself getting more annoyed with prep time abuse. With paper it used to be simple, stand up when you are ready to speak and the prep time ends. Now it seems that participants do things they do not consider prep (saving the file to a jump drive, emailing the file, organizing their flows, changing the order of the speech document, etc.). I am sympathetic to the technical challenges of paperless debate, but I have also experienced efficient rounds where everything moved incredibly smooth (especially when something like pocket box was used). I'd like more of that and less of the rounds that take an extra 15-20 minutes for "technical challenges" related to jump drives or slow emails. For the last few tournaments, I have maintained a more relaxed approach to prep time, I just nuke speaks if it appears to me like you are abusing prep time.

Nuisance Items
Actually not sure what to label this section, so think of this as things I do not like.

1. I do not like poorly developed arguments. For example, "Perm do both" is absolutely meaningless without some warranting and articulation as to how that would actually work. I consider these types of blips as non-arguments. I am pretty up front and vocal about this and still debaters just go into default mode and make tons of these arguments... they are then surprised when I give them no weight. From my perspective, "Perm do both" is removed from consideration when the neg responds with "No don't do both". Both statements provide exactly the same amount of articulation and null out to a non-argument on my flows. This is by way of example, there are tons of these found on your speech documents. You will know it when you make a pointed argument that ends when you finish the tagline. Do the work to explain your argument or don't waste the flow.
2. Evidence Mumbling or Abuse. Like many judges I prefer that you breathe between tags/authors/evidence so I can hear the natural break of your speech. I also listen to evidence and flow what I consider to be important points made by your evidence. If you mumble your evidence, power tag it, take it out of context, etc. I consider it invalid and it may cost you my ballot.
3. Speech Document Abuse. This is a recent trend I have seen on the circuit and I will definitely get punitive to stop this. Here the debater loads a speech document with 40-50 pages of cards. They then proceed to skip all over the speech document expecting everyone to know/understand where they are. obviously this applies to my category of organization (see above). Further, I have seen this approach used to win debates where evidence is considered by the judge after the round EVEN THOUGH it was not read in the round. I should be able to open your speech document and follow along with your speech if I am so inclined. Finally, having a few extra cards in the speech document is NOT abuse. I expect you to have a little extra evidence if you have the time to further your arguments. There really is no fine line here as I have heard some complain, you will definitely know the difference of what I am referring to when you open a speech document that is double or triple the size of a normal speech document.

Background / Experience
I debated (CX/Policy) 4 years at West Jordan High School. After High School, I debated NDT at Weber State. As I mention to all teams that ask my paradigm, I am old school tabula rasa and open to just about anything (except truly offensive/abusive behavior/material). I have yet to encounter a person I could not flow in terms of speed. Clarity obviously matters and if I cannot understand you I will say something like "Clear". You can basically go as fast as you can speak, so long as you are clear. Also, reading analyticals (or non-evidence tags) at supersonic speeds are pretty hard to catch, I would suggest that you explain those types of tags/arguments.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
During high school I competed in LD when I was not doing policy debate. For me, the best way to win my ballot is to make sure you frame any criteria and value into context with the main arguments you feel like you are winning. I also caution competitors that ignoring value and criteria is risky on my flow because it looks as if you concede that and I will interpret arguments based upon the conceded value/criteria of your opponent. That presents a serious uphill obstacle to winning your argument. As my experience is primarily policy based, I can flow anything that LD debates present.

• Theory - I like well developed theory arguments
• Kritiks - I believe I have a pretty good understanding of most critical arguments. However, that does not mean that I will fill in the blanks for you if you do not fully develop your advocacy.
• Critical Aff - I am ok with as long as it is well developed and provides a mechanism for your opponent to participate.
• Framework - I understand FW args from both Policy and LD style debates. What I have encountered the most is participants who do not understand the blocks they are reading.
• Topicality - I have a great understanding of "T" and all of its standards/voters/impacts. I'd suggest not reading T if the Aff has not read a plan.
• Disclosure - I could care less if there arguments are in the wiki or not. With that said, disclosure does take a bite out of fairness impacts (I am not saying I will not consider fairness, but if something has been in the wiki for 2 months, it's going to weigh against claims of fairness).
• Flex Time - As long as everyone agrees to it I am fine with it.
• 1AR Flexibility - I like many judges understand the time constraints on a 1AR. I am willing to give them lots of leeway on covering all arguments made by the NC. However, I still expect enough argumentation to be made that allows the negative rebuttal to understand the "gist" of the aff argument. In effect, it puts the neg "on notice" as to what the aff is arguing. This is not an excuse for blip arguments though. Remember grouping and combining arguments is your friend during this speech.

Order of importance / Round Evaluation
So this is a somewhat problematic area to write about. The first thing to say is that each round is unique and evaluation is therefore unique. I may have a process I usually follow to determine the "winner" of the round but that does not mean I am grounded in any specific approach. That means everything is debatable and subject to the participants within any given round. Outside of this, I (like nearly every judge I have worked with) look for the easiest place to write a ballot. So, if you drop some kind of voter on the flow I may use that as an excuse to write the ballot and get out of doing a lot of evaluation to determine which arguments win over others. With that said things usually look like this

Level 1: Framework -> Theory -> Value/Criteria
Level 2: Kritik -> AC/NC -> Counterplans -> DAs

Another way to think about my approach is to consider the theoretical aspects of how I should evaluate the substantive aspects of the advocacies made during the round. Also, the levels are more important then where the categories are listed above, but I usually find that FW leads me to understand theory and Val/Crit arguments. Usually a K precedes the aff case, etc.


POLICY DEBATE
I am very relaxed and flexible with regards to Cross-Ex, prep time (stopping when the jump drive is out), speakers keeping their own time, etc. I really like the debate to be controlled by the debaters with me as an observer rendering a final decision. With that said, if it seems like you are abusing prep time or other round mechanics I may voice my concern and your speaks will reflect my questions about your behavior.

With the philosophy of letting the debaters decide how the round rolls, I am open to any judging paradigm, all theory and weighted arguments. In my hay-day my partner and I were theory hounds. Kritik's did not exist, but if they did we have would have run them. We loved counter plans, T, counter-warrants, Justification and just about anything else you can imagine. If those arguments are done well, the debate is a real pleasure to observe. I constantly hear varsity debaters make claims regarding dropped arguments. If you do not direct the flow yourself, do not tell me that the other team dropped/conceded an argument. Without directing the flow, you really have no idea where I put arguments. Frankly, I am surprised by the number of varsity competitors I observe that fail to actually direct the flow. In yonder years, this was really the only way you could make a claim that an opponent dropped an argument and why a judge should consider it on the ballot.

For 2AR/2NR, spend 20-30 seconds summarizing the key positions and voters and explain why you win. It's weird to me how many final rebuttals miss this very important aspect of debate. Always tell the judge in the last few seconds why you are winning the debate. If you leave it up to the judge entirely, you may not get the result you hope for. Keep in mind, I vote off my flow and will not do work for either team in terms of advancing/understanding arguments. I figure that if you don't want to take the time to explain your argument, why should I take the time to build it up on the ballot or my flow.

One more thing... during my heyday, particularly in college, we actually flowed evidence warrants as well as taglines. I am funny that way, I still do that. You would be amazed how much I get on my flows in high school rounds. To that end, DO NOT mumble your evidence to me otherwise I do not consider it introduced in the debate and therefore will not consider it when rendering my decision. If I do not have your warrant, I do not consider it. Also, if I catch you power-tagging, clipping or any other patently abusive behavior you can expect a loss and very low speaks.




If you have any other questions, just ask before the round. Also, you are welcome to approach me after rounds and I will give you as much feedback as I can recall.

I'm a senior at The Meadows, and this is my fourth year as a policy debater. Email @ chloenorvelll@gmail.com (that's three L's). 

- I'm not familiar with the new topic as of January so it's extra important to EXPLAIN things. Make it easy for me to vote for you and it's more likely that I will. 

- Don't run theory.

- K's are fine as long as you understand them and can clearly explain them.

- DAs/CPs are chill.

- Clarity > Speed.

- Know your evidence and know it well. 

- I'm going to time you and my time is final.

- Sign post. I beg you. Tell me where things should be going on the flow. Make sure you're giving warrants and weighing args.

- I like overviews. Weigh arguments against each other. Tell me what's happened in the debate and why you should win. 

- Be funny + don't be a jerk. 

- Show me your flow after the round for good speaks. 

- Bring me a snack for even better speaks. (@ASU kids, waffle fries and polynesian sauce are my jam.)

LD Paradigm

McClintock High School

TLDR: I'm okay with you reading whatever you want. It's your round but make the debate clean with strong extensions (this includes warrants).

Background: I was a policy debater in high school and a complete K hack but my thinking has changed a lot here. I encourage you to take smart risks in what you read, Ks are fine, and stick to your strengths. I put a decent amount of information below- read as suggestions and don't change what you're doing if your strengths don't align with my style. I won't be interventionist in my judging unless the round forces me to weigh competing and unresolved claims, so make sure there is clash in early speeches and resolution of the round in your closing speech).

Things that will make me happy: clean flows (I prefer not having to flip between 4 off pages and framework but, again, your round. A sloppy flow probably ends being reflected more in speaker points but if the flow is all over the place, I won't do the extra work for you in cross-extensions or case vs. neg weighting so you have to tell me where to go and how pages interact), strong extensions (make sure you extend warrants- I won't vote on warrantless extensions), heavy case debate and clash (do the weighting for me and make sure the round isn't two ships passing each other), strong claims of mutual exclusivity (my threshold for buying perms is relatively low so make sure you have strong DAs led by strong links and areas of competition- this relates to the heavy case debate point).

FW: I'll listen to anything whether that be traditional LD framework, ROBs and more policy-style FW, etc. In weighing FW on Ks, I value substantive FW (i.e. make claims about solvency in/outside institutions, etc) and fairness (but there needs to be relatively strong uniqueness or in-round abuse). FW, especially in LD, is pretty nuanced and I would prefer to see arguments that include that nuance as opposed to broad-brush, high-impact statements (i.e. deviations from deontological morality lead to genocide is less compelling than topic-specific moral claims, even though I read Berube all the time even in policy so you're still welcome to do so).

Theory/Topicality: similar to FW but I have a pretty high threshold to vote on theory/T. As a disclaimer, I never extended theory/topicality out of 1NC in high school but my thinking has changed here and I've come to value debate as a forum and educational experience, as opposed to a truth-seeking endeavor, more than I did.

Ks: do them well. I was exclusively a K debater and think I missed out on a lot of educational experiences that would have come from more traditional debate/putting more thought into my 1NCs than throwing postmodernism at everything. This means that I want there to be a strong uniqueness claim meaning a strong link and a strong alt telling me why this you're reading this specific K and why you're reading it in this round against this aff. I probably have a higher link/internal link threshold for Ks than say a case advantage or a DA. Provide and extend specific links/internal links with warrants so that I have more to vote on than a broad-brush impact that applies equally to most affs I could be judging.

Overview: 3 years of policy debate. No LD. Yes, I know that sucks but adapting is part of the game.

 

I am okay with all types of arguments, all I ask is you explain and weight them appropriately. As a first-time LD judge, if you have me in the early rounds, I'll be rough around the edges but please do not completely change your debating style/strategy to accomate for me. That's the last thing I would want. I've done my homework and will be 100% prepared to fairly judge.

Speed

I am great with speed. My ex told me I was a great listener. 

Flow

Make your arguments clear and I will put it on the flow. If you thik I may have missed an argument, reitterate it and more often than not, I'll catch it and update my flow.

Other stuff

Prep time ends when the flash drive is out of your computer. Creating a speech doc is prep time.

Don't be demeaning but I am okay with aggressive cx

If I have time, I'll provide detailed help in regards to your arguments and/or debating style. Ask me for my email and I'll send it to you.

I debated in LD for Brophy College Prep for four years. I coached Brophy LD for a year.

K- Most familiar with Foucault, D&G, Freire but, willing to listen to all. If you want to implement an alt, make sure the alt actually makes sense. Also, it'd be great if you could spend more time analytically explaining how the K works rather than reading cards to extend the offense off a K.

T- Default to competing interps.

Theory- Condo is fine. I default to competing interps.

Things that are annoying that I now just would rather not hear: Timecube or any argument of the ilk, although if you have a well-warranted as to why I should hear it, I will still listen

TLDR: I will listen to anything if it's well-warranted and it offers me a route to the ballot.

I debated LD for two years on natcir. I can keep up with spreading but it might put me in a bad mood. I like a strong flow, the most arguments standing win. My main voters are framework and a strong value debate. Debaters will be rewarded for puns. 

Lay judge.

Parent 4th year involvement.

Have fun, flow like water.

You are all amazing:)

Experience

- 3 years of Collegiate Debate (IPDA)

- B.A. Speech Communications

- M.A. Higher Education Administration

-several years experience judging IPDA, Policy, LD, PF & IEs.

 

I have two main paradigms

1. Quality Over Quanity ( I can keep up with speed but i will weigh the quality and effectivness of contentions and clash over the shear amount of contentions a debater brings. So don't overthink it. Speed can prevent great debators from being effective communicators. 

2. Afirmative Burden (The AFF's job is to uphold the resolution and ultimately "convince" the judge of a position, all the NEG has to do is to sow doubt in the AFF's case and there are countless ways to do that. Because of this reality there exists a very real and statistically significant burden for the AFF side. To improve this imbalance I will generally allow the AFF the space to define the round and will adopt their Value/Criterion as long as it is a fair and reasonable approach that can provide clash for the Neg.

 

ghadashehab321@gmail.com (Start an email chain right away please)

FOR LD:
Basically, I'm familiar with most progressive/traditional arguments. So feel free to run whatever you want.

If you have questions, please ask before round.


Techniciality before anything, I judge that first.
Theory is fine, but break it down and tell me why its a voting issue. I don't do RVIs. Counter-interp's are better than "we-meet". But go about it whatever way you want.
I feel very strongly about calling your opponent a "cheater". I think there are better ways/words to show that you are being put at a disadvantage during the debate round.


Some dropped arguments are honestly useless for the whole picture of the debate. Just because you extended a dropped argument that does nothing for you doesn't mean I'll vote it up.


Topicality is also fine and I will evaluate it first if I think your opponent is being unfair. I do strongly believe that for fair engagement inside of the debate space, the affirmative should be somewhat topical. However, this is up to you to convince me how to vote off of that.

K's are great. I'm familiar with most of the K's circulating around, and with a lot of the literature of K's. But if you're going to be reading something out of the ordinary, articulate and explain it to me.
(I will say this; however, most people that run structural violence K's tend to group minorities in hierarchies and solve for the "most oppressed"; this strategy is wrong and offensive).


Philosophical arguments are also very cool. I love Philosophy. However, you will need to explain it to me if its out of the ordinary.

Traditional LD is also awesome. If you're going to do Traditional LD, then i'll put a little emphasis on the V/VC debate. I love good framework debates! I HATE cross-benefit/cost-benefit analysis frameworks, if you do read that, just know i'm disappointed.


I've seen a few performance cases and I loved them, if that's what you do, go for it.


I don't flow Cross-Ex, but I listen. If there is something that you want on your flow, bring it up in your speech.


SPEED - Speed is great, go as fast as you want BUT taglines, plan texts and/or advocacies should always be conversation speed. If I don't hear it, i won't flow it.
Intensity is fine, just don't be rude.
Speaker Points - I never give 26 or lower, if I do, you're super offensive and/or rude.
& Always give voters.

-If you wanna transfer CX time to prep; go for it.

I also call for evidence a lot.

If I don't understand something, you will know from my face expressions. I will expect you to explain it to me if you notice that I don't understand your argument. I can't vote on something that doesn't make sense to me.

Things I hate:
-Males talking over Females in CX is a pet peeve of mine.
-Being a Male and being over-aggressive to your female opponent will earn you a 25 or lower.
-Knowing that your opponent is traditional and then reading like 2 K's or 8 off is also un-educational and unhelpful. A good debater knows how to adjust and win off of that. I'm not saying I won't vote off of it, I'm just saying its unproductive inside of the given debate space.
-K's with no alts aren't K's.. Seriously.

-- i'm EXTREMELY tired of progressive vs. traditional debates. If your opponent is traditional, adjust. That's what good debaters do.

I prefer taditional, not progressive arguments

Speed: Try not to go too fast

Fairly new at judging LD debates

I prefer traditional, not progressive arguments. 

Speed: Try not to go too fast

I am fairly new to judging

LD Paradigm:

For Lincoln-Douglas debate, I have three major focuses that all debaters should adhere to following standard LD protocol.

First, I am straightforward framework judge. I will keep a close record of contentions, sources (list dates of source publication during speeches), and counterarguments of each side. If two cards clash, I will value what is most recent (hence why dates matter) and most relevant to the debate topic. Pointing out logical fallacies in your opponent's argument while crafting a solid logical argument is key to winning framework. Very important: I prefer to stick to the resolution and will therefore discount meta-debate arguments.

Second, I will look for a strong ethical argument regarding each side's value and criterion. Generally by the second speech for each side, I want consensus on all definitions given in the round as well as a reason why I should choose one value over another. Bonus points will be observed for the debaters who can absorb their opponent's value into their own framework.

Third, be clear on voter issues in the final speeches. Make sure your proposed outcomes are realistic and logical. Since there is no time for rebuttals on final speeches, I will weigh the quality of closing statements.

Other notes:

I have a pretty fast ear and I do not mind if speeches are delivered quickly as long as I can understand them. As a general rule, I recommend speaking louder if you also wish to speak faster. Diction is very important.

Use cross-examination time wisely. Try to minimize clarification questions since this time should be reserved for poking holes in your opponent's logic. Any trading of cards is permitted during prep time, but taking notes on the cards will be on the clock!

Competed in, judged, and coached LD for 20 years.  As far as I'm concerned, "progressive" LD doesn't exist.  Analysis beats a card every time, the primary focus of the round should be on value, and policy shenanigans like Ks and CPs should be left in policy where they belong.  I'll happily flow words spoken at a normal pace, but if you're spreading, I can't follow it, it doesn't go on the flow, and I judge on the flow.  To win on the value, you must prove that your V/C uphold the resolution best, and all frameworks should bear that in mind.

I competed in LD for 4 years at Chandler High, in AZ, and now I attend Rice University but don't debate anymore. 

General Stuff

-Speed: I'm fairly okay with speed but like don't begin with the fastest you can go. I'll yell clear when needed. That being said, if you don't slow down or  you get unclear, I can't really flow it so that prolly won't be helpful to you. Also, pretty please slow down on your contentions, author names, and taglines.

-Etiquette: I won't count flashing as prep time unless you're taking like forever to do it. I'm okay with flex prep if your opponent is. Flash each other cases or pass papers, don't do the over the shoulder thing. Be a nice person

-I really like extensions- it will help me evaluate stuff at the end. If things are not extended, I'll assume you gave up on that argument

-Weighing: plz do it, especially on empirical arguments- so do comparisons like timeframe, magnitude, scope, probabiliy, etc

-Extra stuff: Give me a roadmap before your speeches, and please try to signpost, it'll be super helpful to me :)

Theory

Not a big fan of theory but if you feel the abuse is there, go for it, I will listen to it and evaluate it the best I can. I will default to reasonability

Policy Style Args

-K's: I definitely think K's add a lot to the round and I find it super interesting. However, I am not well versed with a lot of K's so if it's really dense stuff, make sure you can explain it well and that you know what you're talking about. Please have good alts. 

-CPs, DAs: I'm fine with it, just make sure you evaluate it under some sort of framework, and again, do weighing. 

 

If you have any specific questions, just ask :)

Hi, I'm a lay judge without speech and debate experience. Speak clearly. If you talk too fast, I may lose the crux of your argument. Make sure in the end you summarize your strongest points and explain how your side wins and why. Thank you!

The debate space is where we learn something, but that being said don't refuse to debate the resolution because we are there for that. I like kritiks, but within the boundaries of the resolution. Speed is fine, but I can only weigh what I can flow. Develop your arguments throughout the round. Prove to me that your frame work should be preferred, or failing that win on the contention level. 

If you get into theory about the purpose of debate then make sure that you actually stick to the topics at hand as well. Relate the theory to the current debate. 

Coaching for 23 years and taught debate for same amount of time. Holistic judge/flow judge, but want CLASH on both sides. I am okay with speed, but should not deplinish your arguments-those come first. Some progressive is okay, don't like Plans or Counter Plans-those need to stay in CX.

This is still value debate so would like to see value criterion used and supported.

K's okay, not optimal, but will listen to them.

Standing during debate is a must-lazy if you don't.

I graduated from Horizon High School in Scottsdale, AZ in 2015. While there, I participated in two years of LD debate. I would be lying if I said that I was my team's star debater (never broke, ha!). I debated because I truly enjoyed the intellectual and competitive nature of debate. This is something that is very important to me. Please be nice to your opponent.

At the moment, I am a sophomore at the University of Arizona studying to be an accountant. I have not debated since my senior year of high school, and have yet to judge a round. This is something you should keep in mind. I’m fine with you running anything as long as you are confident that you are able to explain it to a lay judge and as long as your argument doesn’t make you seem completely reprehensible. You don’t need to speak at conversational speed, but I will slow you down if I am unable to understand you. Please don’t assume that just because I have some LD experience under my belt that you have permission to speak 350 wpm.

 

 

I expect debaters to be civil and respectful throughout the round.  

Speaking: 1) speak with clarity, please refrain from spreading; 2) after saying "clear" three times, I will dock points if I still cannot understand; 3) if I cannot understand what you are saying I will not flow; 

Debate style: I am open to all types of arguments but prefer traditional debate. 

If you have specific questions, we can discuss before round.

 

 

 

 

 

I am a sophomore at MIT. Debated LD and poicy for 4 years.   I like a good framework debate and weighing.  I want you to tell me why I should vote for you.

Theory- Please do it well if you do it

Speed- I'm fine with it.  Slow down on tags for your own sake.

K's- Sure.