I've been the LD coach at Saint Thomas Academy/Visitation since 2005. I debated LD a long time ago.

TLDR (my round is starting):

Be smart, interesting and topical. Speed is fine, but be clear. Don't like theory unless it's really abusive. Otherwise open to most anything

Decision Calculus

I approach the debate in layers. I start at framing (role of the ballot, then standards for order). Once I have a framework, I evaluate whatever offense that links to that framing. This means I may ignore some offense being weighed if it doesn't link. I appreciate it when you do the work of clearly linking and layering for me. The clearer you are in layering, linking and weighing, the better your speaker points.

Tendencies

I like to think I keep a reasonably detailed flow. I flow card bodies. To help me locate where you are, signpost to the author names. I try to evaluate on the line by line as much as possible, but Im using that to construct and evaluate the big picture arguments that I compare.

I prefer well developed deeper stories to blip arguments.

I prefer different takes on the resolution. I reward well run creative topical arguments. If you can explain it, I'll listen to most any argument. Creative args are not an auto win though.

Theory is reasonability, drop the arg. I'll intervene If it's run (that's how it checks actual abuse). Given that I prefer creative resolutional approaches, there's not a lot theory applies to.

I can evaluate nat circuit structures and traditional debate structure. Use what's comfortable for you, but I may give some technical leeway to traditional debaters trying to address nat circuit case structures.

It goes without saying, but don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I'll potentially intervene if you are.

Dont be mean. It tanks your speaks.

Im usually pretty relaxed, debate is supposed to be fun. You should relax a bit too.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

General: I debated for four years on nat circuit at Harker. I'm open to any sort of argument, but here are my defaults:

Theory:
- If your A strat is to run a bunch of theory spikes/presumption triggers every round and do no topic prep, don't pref me :D I will not vote on frivolous theory.
- I'll still listen to any shell you read, especially if there is legit abuse in the round. Well-executed plans good/plans bad, pics good/bad, etc. are fine.
- I default to competing interpretations and drop the argument, but I'll vote on whatever is decided in the debate.
- RVIs are fine.

Fmwk/Philosophy:
- I ran mostly util and policy style arguments, but you can read whatever you want so long as you justify your framework fully and explain how you (and your opponent) can weigh under your standard clearly
- Just because you win framework or ROB doesn't mean you win the round - weigh your links
- I'm not very compelled by skep - its probably defense

Kritiks:
- Run them - I think they're the most educational part of debate, but if you read a rather uncommon K (i.e. something other than Cap, Fem, Racism, Anthro, etc.) make sure you explain them in english and not esoteric philosophical terms.

Most importantly, have fun! Debate is about learning and having fun while learning, not just trophies :D

In Policy I have a strong preference for the stock issues paradigm.

 

In LD & PF I tend to vote as a tabs judge and will listen to nearly any argument as long as it is well argued.  

 

That being said, I place a high value on well explained arguments that give me clear reasoning for prefering it and dislike poorly designed obscure arguments designed purely to throw off the opponent in order to claim they dropped your contentions.  In other words, I want a real debate on the topic and dislike obscure K's.

Preferred E-mail:

janet.esco@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA)3-ish years (Policy)

Bradley Tech High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 4 yrs (Policy), Assistant Debate Coach - 1Yr (LD & PF)

Current Position: Head Coach at Oak Grove HS, Kipp San Jose Collegiate, and Downtown College Prep-El Primero

I'm only writing this so I don't get fined. J.K.

If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.

Things that will aggravate me and make me want to hurt a puppy (May apply to National circuit LD and PF debates when applicable):

• The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them) -_-
• Race arguments executed badly, ESPECIALLY from someone that has never experienced racial discrimination a day in their lives. You will get stale-faced, and I will make sure my ancestors haunt you in your dreams. -__________________-
• When you run topicality when you're constrained to a packet and use abuse as a voter -__-
• When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
• When you argue with me and you know you're wrong. Don't do it. I'm not the one, I promise you.

I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggresive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.

The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.

I am okay with speed as long as you're clear. If you know you are an uncler spreader, then don't do it to me or to yourself. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing if it continues and give you the death glare.

K debates, performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine.

Theory and framework debates- I need you to definately slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.

I will not vote on oncase arguments alone on the neg, I need some sort of off case to go with it.

Lincoln-Douglass:

Same applies. Don't make me want to kick a puppy in your name. I love impact arguments and extending those impact arguments. Whether its extinction, dehum, etc. I need Impacts and I'll love you for using them.

Framework: Will vote on it if you tell me why I should vote on it with clear impacts.

T and theory: same

DA's and CPs: they neeeedd to have impacts and your counterplans need to be mutually exclusive either on their own or through a net benefit.

I value more the quality of the argument than the amount. I like efficiency.

line by lines make me happy.

Dont be condescending in round or when giving my RFD. If you do, I can't promise that I won't embarrass you.

I am a fairly progressive judge, I am open to most arguments and stay as objective as possible.

Updated 25 August 2019

TL;DR: Parent judge (arghh/ yipeee/ whatever-you-feel). I am able to flow most common types of args (but not dense phil/Ks) delivered at normal speed. I value logical args/ rebuttals, even if purely analytical.

Spreading: I will likely miss some args but will do my best to follow along with any speech docs you share. I strongly recommend you slow down for your tags and crucial points, especially if extemporaneous. Do signpost.

Case Debate: I expect a basic level of case debate in addition to whatever else you may choose to run.

Theory: I am unlikely to view it favorably unless you can show a timely pre-round good faith effort to avoid citing the violation in question. Unless it is a completely unexpected/ egregious in-round violation, the burden is on you to have engaged in pre-round communications if it could have voided the need for a theory debate.

Warrants: Incontrovertible, objective, data based cards are more potent than opinions/ claims. If I call for a card, I am also checking the text you minimized/ did not read.

ROB/ ROJ: Unless proven otherwise, all args will be viewed as a strategy to win a HS debate round and not as an altruistic endeavor to effect societal/ policy change.

I am a parent judge and enjoy volunteering my time for the greater good of debating. I've sent two of my kids thru the high school debate program in Lakeville. I'm in my 9th year of judging and have been hooked since day one. Since then I've changed my own philosophy to better myself and listen to each side of any debate whether at a tournament or in day to day living.

I strongly believe one of the primary purposes of studying and participating in debate is to learn how to speak to and influence an audience. You should appeal to the judge, stick to the resolution and KNOW your case. This will guide my critique of your debate.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. I vote heavily on your ability to verbalize the links between your evidence and the resolution. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about one or two pieces of important evidence rather than simply listing several off.

If you plan to argue the resolution is unfair, I am not your judge. I believe it is a waste of time to complain about the resolution rather than doing what you should be doing, debating it.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. I expect you to take your RFD graciously as well as shake your opponent’s hand.

Thank you and Good luck!!

Kimberly Herrera

Brookfield Central High Scool

Brookfield, WI

Experience: 4 years judging; 1 year policy, 3 years LD/PF

In an LD round, whoever achieves the accepted value and value criterion better will win the round. I’m traditional in that I do like you to debate the framework. Don’t ignore it and flow it through the round.

I value clash. That goes for all divisions. Make sure you’re attacking your opponent’s case equally to defending yours. Give me line-by-line analysis and impact analysis. It’s nice if you tell me your voters, but if you don’t, I’ll fall back to the framework debate and decide who achieves it better. I don't like theory arguments, unless you can make it clear on what the theory is and explain it thoroughly.

In policy I flow all arguments. I look for solvency in the round. If there is no solvency then I'll weigh the round based on impacts. Counterplans are okay, I’m less familiar with Kritiks. If you’re going to run it, make sure you explain it well.

I don’t prefer speed. I can handle it to an extent but be clear and enunciate. If you’re going too fast I’ll tell you. I do allow using your phone as timers.

I will only disclose if I know my decision. If I do not know my decision, I will let the students go while I look through my flow and decide.

I also dont give oral critiques, i will write them on the ballot.

Here are the things that matter:

I did not debate as a student.

I have judged PF and LD for 8 years.

I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.

My favorite philosophy is Utilitarianism... just sayin’

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 come from a circuit LD background, BUT I have not judged on the circuit in several years.

Debated LD for Apple Valley High School for four years, class of '09.
Worked at various summer institutes from 2009-2014.

I have not flowed speed in awhile, and wasn't that great with it to begin with, so proceed with caution. I will yell clear once. Slow down for tags and author names.

I strongly prefer debates centered around the topic as a question of comparative worlds/ policymaking, ideally rooted in good evidence from the topic literature. If you are choosing to approach the topic differently, the burden of responsibility is on you to explain and clearly develop your ballot story. I won't vote for anything that I don't understand, or if I don't understand the function of the argument within the round.

Don't be tricky or shady.

I have a fairly high threshold for what constitutes a complete extension-- make sure that you're re-explaining a developed and warranted link story in your rebuttals.

I am willing to listen to theory debates, but I am not excited about it and prefer to see theory used as a check on actual abuse. Be very explicit in terms of the function of your theory arguments. I am frankly not particularly interested in spending my free time thinking about all of the nuances of various theory debate norms and practices, so make arguments about how I should evaluate things rather than making assumptions about how I ought to be doing it.

The things we say in debate rounds matter. I can't stand rudeness, and I will drop you if you run offensive arguments. I will not accept advocacies or frameworks (that the debater admits) say that suffering, genocide, etc. are good.

Be nice to one another. Be smart. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Good luck!

Hey, I debated at Damien for four years went to the TOC a couple times and now go to USC

Some thoughts:
Aff:
Affirmatives should defend the hypothetical enactment of a topical plan. Middle of the road or big stick, doesn't matter to me. 

Neg:
Read what you want as long as it engages the affirmative in a meaningful manner. This necessarily excludes decontextualized criticisms 
T/Theory:
My default is competing interpretations, but interpretations should be reasonable.

Reject the argument not the team, except for conditionality.

DA:
DA's other than politics are awesome, but I went for politics a fair amount in high school.

CP:
I prefer cp's to compete functionally/textually, but it is possible for a team to persuade me otherwise 
PIC's are awesome.
Advantage CP's are awesome.
International fiat tows a fine line. Could be persuaded it's good or bad.

Process Cp's and consult cp's tow the line even more

K:
I am not biased against these per se but they are by far the hardest argument to execute, absent dropped silver bullets i.e. root cause, ontology first, or floating pik's.
Framework should be impacted.
Links should be responsive to the content of the 1AC.
Impacts should be based off of such links, not the overall knowledge/material/methodological structure you are criticizing. K's should not be an excuse to sidestep conventional impact comparison.
Alternatives should either be explained to solve such links or explained within a framework that makes alternative solvency irrelevant.

Judge:
Explanation over evidence. If you ask me to read a card after the round which has warrants not explained in the debate, those warrants are irrelevant.
Tech and truth. Technical concessions matter, but there can be larger truths which belittle the weight of such concessions. Control framing to control the debate.
Rebuttals. Make choices. Go for what you are ahead on, and explain why what you are ahead on is more important than what you are behind on using even if statements.
Prep time ends after you are done writing the speech.

Debate's a game have fun! 

Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:

https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

Hi

TL;DR :P

Do what you want, for the most part.

Be clear, concise, and weigh your arguments.

Give clear voters and try not to win off of defense.

Be respectful to your opponent and I. I don't care if you don't agree with my decision or not, the task is on you to persuade me to vote for you and if you don't adapt you probably won't get it. I do not tolerate aggression towards your opponent as an intimidation strategy *articulate passion and critical rage is different than aggression, the former has nuance and craft to make a pedagogy. Respect includes using the proper name and pronouns of everyone in the debate space that they identify with. My pronouns are they/them and I expect that to be respected and I will do my part to ensure the identities of you and your opponent are respected as well.

Credentials- I debated on the Eagan LD team for 4 years in MN and coached for one year with Lakeville North/South also in MN. I debated both national circuit and locally. I preferred circuit debate during my time. That was MY preference. I love any style of debate that you prefer, as long as you pull it off well. Whether your traditional, circuit, or experimental hit me with your best shot.

NOTE: Don’t cite my paradigm as evidence to automatically abide by, or exclude certain advocacies, offense, defense, etc… Whatever I have under my preferences and defaults shouldn’t be what I use to evaluate the round, this is what I use in the absence of you doing your job. Paint a clear picture of what your advocacy is, how it functions in this round and with your opponent’s advocacy. Give me clear weighing analysis, impacting and linking and you just might get a 30. I try to be fairly tabula rasa (you know, as best I can) with a few reasonable exceptions, but for the most part you can run anything you want in front of me as long as you explain it well.

Speed- I’m alright with speed so long as you are clear. I highly doubt that you can outspread me, but that doesn't mean that you can't slow down for tags and card authors and any sort of bullet-pointing whether it is lettering, numbering etc. If you are unclear, you get one “clear” then you shouldn’t expect much on the flow or good speaks.

Framework- I love good framework debates. I mean, it is how I evaluate the round, so it's definitely worth your time. If your arguments are strategic and engaging you can expect some pretty good speaks. However, there unfortunately does need to be some healthy balance of framework and offense. Framework isn’t a voting issue in of itself until you link offense back into it or you make a good reason why fw is an independent voter in the round.

Offense/Defense- Warrants need to be clear, links need to be specific. The more effort/strategy you put into your arguments, the better they will be evaluated. A blippy argument will be easily defeated by another argument of an equal one sentence length.

Theory- I ran SOOOO MUCH theory as a debater. That being said. Don’t run blippy theory or sketchy offs that have some magical implication to drop the debater just because that is how theory functions. You need to be very specific of the abuse in round and flesh out all the support for your implications. If you run theory for the sake of theory you will get very low speaks, and your opponent won’t have a high threshold for answering it. If there is real abuse this shouldn’t be very hard to avoid. Don’t think I’m not open to most theory args, I very much am. You just have to do a good job running it. I will not listen to speed theory (a K is better here honestly) or disclosure theory unless there is a tournament rule requiring it. One of my biggest fears is that someone will be too afraid to run theory in front of me so their opponent will just wipe the floor with them and get away with abuse. Also, I am very interested in hearing what you feel debate should be like, so even if it doesn’t immediately strike me like “A Priori’s Bad Theory” if you can provide good, logical reasons why this should be a rule/guideline and why it warrants your implications I’ll be glad to vote for it. I love theory, but let’s make sure we keep it at least fairly legit please.

K’s- I love them a lot. I also ran a ton of these during my time. I love it when you can also prove to me that you actually understand the arguments you’re making (hint hint don't run things that you can't explain yourself). If you can do this, you’ll escape with high speaks and likely the round. I especially love it if it takes me by surprise. Alt’s have to be something better than drop the opponent and/or rethink mindsets, RoB/J that's a different story. Micro-pol is okay, but you’ll really have to explain how the debate community can actually have an effect in tackling your problems. I’m fine with pre and post fiat k’s. The same standards I have for theory and all other arguments apply here.

Performance- I love a good performance. Again, I enjoy debaters speaking from their heart on issues that they find important. Make sure it isn’t too sketchy though and that it has good impacts. These arguments aren’t automatically free from theory/topicality/k violations in my book, so be careful on that note (or be prepared to engage in those discussions). I'm not a fan of reject the resolution cases unless you can give me some seriously well-thought out and passionate rationale.

Speaks- I don’t evaluate who spoke better as a voting issue. HOWEVER, it is useful for comparative purposes for you to see what that round was like through my eyes. It breaks down like so:

30- I don't feel competent enough to judge you

29- This round was worth nine out of my ten goats. You aren’t the top of my list, but you're pretty damn close.

28- Not Bad.

27- Alright, could’ve been better, but it could’ve been a lot worse. You're very talented.

26- Yikes, need a bit of improvement. It’s okay though, everyone has a bad day.

25- I am horrified by how bad this was.

<24- Dude, dudette or dudex… get your shit together.

20- You have learned my paradigm like the back of your hand just so you could strategically piss me off.

Tricks- I can vote for them just fine and won’t drop speaks on face value unless it's offensive. I won’t protect you though when someone runs theory or some other sort of off all over you. Aside from that, I was a very trick heavy debater (remember I did love the national circuit). The same mechanisms I have for evaluating regular offense goes here. In terms of triggers, I’ll only evaluate if you make it clear what triggers it beforehand. If you trigger it and it makes me do a double take, it probs wasn’t clear enough.

Topicality- I evaluate it almost the same as theory. I prefer to evaluate it in terms of limits. I’ll be open to however you want to run it though. I never ran it that much unless it was against a reject the topic AC or some other glaringly obvious misconstruction of the res.

LARPing- It’s alright; I don’t like policy-making, but I will vote on it and I feel that it is unfair that I automatically reject frames of minds that don’t suit my bias. I also will not dock speaker points on face value.

Presumption/Permissibility/Skep- Meh, can we not… Please… I know what I said about tricks but these I find are the lowest of the low.

***Also side note, not all actions are morally permissible, claim otherwise and I will hit you with a shoe.

Defaults

-I prefer to examine the resolution through a desirability point of view, yet truth testing and comparative worlds is 100% alright with me. If you have some other evaluative mechanism I am fine with that so long as you explain the function and implications well.

-I default to competing interpretations. However, I am EXTREMELY easy to sway one way or the other with good reasoning, especially if there is clear abuse.

-I default to Fairness as a voter, but again EXTREMELY easy to sway for education or any other voter.

-I default to grant an RVI under the circumstance that a debater has sufficient turn ground against the other’s standards. However, absent this turn ground and without clear reasons why I should grant them under other circumstances I go back to evaluating substance.

*I am going to try and defend you as best as I can if you point out real abuse, i.e. you run a good theory shell but the negative puts 500 blippy theory spikes you can never respond to. But there is a point where you need to be able to defend yourself, I can’t intervene to protect you on everything.

-I presume coin flip.

-I don’t presume a risk of offense.

-Debate is about what you want it to be, if you want that to be critical, stock, value or an entire AC made with pre-emptive theory go ahead.

Preferences

-I won’t vote for some intuitive bads such as racism good. Extinction good, I'll raise an eyebrow but I'll listen. Just be careful and weigh the risks of running some of these arguments.

-I prefer Counter Plans to be non-topical.

-Disads need a strong link and strong internal links, be sure to also weigh effectively.

-Aff’s don’t always need a solvency advocate in my mind, it really depends here. That is a bias, I will evaluate what burdens you as the debaters come to a conclusion on so if neither of you make an issue out of it I won’t lose sleep over it. If you run a counter-plan though I will be very angry if I don’t see one. K’s I greatly prefer one, but not 100% needed.

-A role of the ballot for k’s and performances or other sorts of interesting offs would be nice, but not totally necessary depending on how the argument functions.

-No matter how well read I am in a particular topic and/or literature don’t rely on me to fill in the gaps for you, your job as the debater is to explain and know what you are advocating and to persuade me to vote for you. DON’T MAKE ME DO ANY WORK FOR YOU!

Don’t be afraid to ask if you're confused on anything, I won't be offended to provide clarity and I want you to be able to adapt as best you can.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Email chain: k.merchant786@gmail.com

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign ‘20

Background: I actually went to Glenbrook South High school and did policy my freshman year, then did LD for 3 years. I’ve also been judging at the Glenbrooks for a couple of years now.

Speed: Just be CLEAR. No insane spreading please, but if you are communicative and clear go for it.

Speaks: I will award speaks based on the arguments made as well as appropriate debate etiquette.

Tricks/Spikes: Not a huge fan

Theory: Prefer substantive theory. Don’t just call abuse on everything.

Conceded and dropped arguments will obviously not flow through.

Love impact calc, voting issues, role of the ballot: Tell me how to vote.

Das/CPS: Perfectly fine.

Poor/bad K debates are not my favorite and no long K overviews. Clear explanations of how your K works and functions!

Framework debate: Make it quick! Explain any phil args it will only help you if you end up spending time on fw debate

Prep time ends with email is sent/flash drive is out!

Trial Attorney
Parent Judge, 2nd year



Please do not make any arguments that justify racism, sexism, or homophobic practices. I'll drop you.



I won't dock you directly if I can't keep up. But please be coherent. I want to be convinced. As a practicing trial attorney, I understand that almost every argument has two points. I've often walked in on a first year associate on the other side in a motion hearing, and just taken over, giving the judge a way and path to rule for me. I get both sides of the argument you are making. I've done my own research on the topic - no matter what the topic is. So know how to present, and be ready to cross and counter. I'm listening. 

• I wish I could be progressive in the courtroom. I love technology in the court. I'm open for whatever you want to bring at me, if you can convince me.
• At the end of the round, I look at who is winning the impacts and which impacts outweigh.
• Let me know your framework. I have to know what I'm judging, and why. You tell me.

CounterPlans: It's LD. I don't expect a counterplan. But if you're running one, spend time on it and be thorough. 

Speed: I won't tell you you're going to fast. But I'm old. I want to keep up with your arguments. It's up to you. 

Speaker points: Lose points for Rude. Lose points for incoherence. Small deductions for nerves, umms and the like. 

If you have any other questions, ask me before the round. Debate is supposed to be fun and educational, so speak with conviction and passion. Above all things, be respectful to everyone in the round  

 

 

KAVITA PERSAUD
Judge Paradigm TRADITIONAL JUDGE

Background:
Current Debate Coach at Cape Fear Academy
Coaching High School Debate 2008-2013, 2015- current
Former High School Debater, Parliamentary Debate
Physician.

Philosophy:
Debate is an educational activity.
Debate is about communication.

Likes:
1. Debating the resolution
2. Advocacy of a position
3. Framework
4. Structure & Organization with clear sign-posting
5. Clash
6. Strategic Cross-Ex
7. Engaging Speaking Style
8. Courtesy
9. Crystallization and Weighing
10. Voting Issues

Dislikes:
1. Spreading
2. Non-topical Debates
3. Generic Kritiks
4. Theory unless clear abuse
5. Tricks
6. Rudeness
7. Extinction Impacts when not truly topical
8. Poorly selected evidence or improperly cited evidence
9. Jargon
10.

Please ask additional questions before the round.

I competed Lincoln Douglas all through high school at Fremd and have judged Congress and Lincoln Douglas on the regional and national level for the past 7 years. Paradigm is pretty straight forward for LD -- win Value and value criterion debate based on framework, take down contention level debate, and flow through your voters based on impacts. Be clear in sign posting, extending arguments, pointing out drops, and giving voters, and I will flow the round pretty transparently. That is the basis of how to win a round.

Secondly, I am open to counter plans and other out of traditional scope options of debating for National level tournaments. For counter-plans I will weigh impacts and which side is winning value and value criterion debate based on framework.

Lastly, if a debater is using observations or anything else in the round that ends up getting decided as the basis of how to debate/go forward, I am open to weighing those measures, given it is mutual between the two debaters and I have a clear basis on how the round/voters will be weighed. --- In a nut shell, if you ask clear and direct questions on any given theory you may be unsure debating about, I am pretty flexible to judge accordingly to the situation at hand. Otherwise default to the first half of this paradigm where I explain line by line how to win a round. I don't care about speed (spreading), long as I can still flow. Stand during your cross examinations, speeches, rebuttals etc (if possible). Professionalism is important.

Thanks -- Ask questions for anything you are unsure of.

-- Bushra Shams

 

Key Considerations:

• Substance of argument over style of argumentation is a primary metric by which I seek to appraise a round.  There are many debate styles that may come and go in popularity, but the substance of an argument is central to all.  Accomplish substance more thoroughly than your opponent and a win will be earned.

 

• Intelligent and Intelligible arguments are preferred.  In other words, provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed/flowed in proper fashion.

 

• Strong development of argumentative framework, appropriate evidence, and proper linkage are all assets in a round.

 

• Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground.  Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponent. 

 

• Special Note: A significant and primary task of a winning debate is to address the resolution, address the resolution, and address the resolution.  Those who address the resolution will have a far better chance at earning a win than those who seek to address a matter that lies outside of the stated scope of a round.  Specifically, one should be prepared to debate the chosen topic not a topic about the topic or of your preference.

 

Experience: 

• I have debated in high school and college with primary experience in Policy and Lincoln Douglas styles.  I have coached at the high school level for a number of years during my teaching tenure at North Oldham High School and strongly support the Wilson Wyatt Debate League philosophy of providing constructive reflection for debaters.

  

Former LD/PF Coach at Marquette University High School in Milwaukee, WI and former PF debater at Brookfield East High School (class of 2014) in Brookfield, WI.

As far as the round goes, my bottom line is that I don’t want to have to intervene so please make the round as clear as possible. Speaking more generally, I think debate can teach

Short Version

LD

I prefer traditional debate.

I'm open to progressive arguments if they're well-presented and clearly link into the resolution, but tread carefully and at your own risk.

Don't spread. It's a cheap strat with no real world value. Left up to me, it would be banned from debate.

PF

PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience. Please don't be lazy and fire off all your research at me as quickly as possible Be very clear with arguments and thorough with your rebuttals.

Give voters in the Final Focus. Please.

Long Version

LD

I’m theoretically open to anything as a judge so long as you extend your arguments throughout the round, offer good impact calc, and provide solid links to the resolution (especially if you plan on running anything 'progressive'). This may seem basic but it's only happened in 10% of the debates I've judged, maybe less.

As far as content goes, I would much rather judge a traditional debate. This means providing a framework (ex: value and value criterion) followed by a few topical contentions. I'm okay with Kritiks and theory so long as they apply to the resolution. For example, a Native-American oppression K works well with a resolution about education (seeing as the US actively destroyed Native-American culture through boarding schools), but it doesn't work nearly as well when debating criminal justice. In other words, please tailor your Ks (or theory) to the resolution. If you don't, I'll conclude that someone gave you something to read and that you don't actually know how to debate and will be clamoring for reasons to drop you for the remainder of the debate.

Spreading is a cancer in LD debate. Sure, debate is like a game and spreading is a strategy you can employ to win the game, but it's not something you're going to go pro in- there's no professional debate league. The value of debate to you as a debater derives from the skills it equips you with to navigate through life (i.e. research, articulation, persuasiveness, audience adaptation, etc). The point is that spreading is not a skill you will use in life after debate.

To clarify, I won't drop you for spreading but will gleefully tank your speaks. If both debaters want to spread I will judge the round as you wish but will tank your speaks. I'm sure this annoys many of the "progressive" LDers reading this, but if you're actually good at debate, adapting shouldn't be a problem.

PF

It saddens me that I need to put this in my paradigm, but I will drop you if you run anything progressive in Public Forum. PF is supposed to appeal to a lay audience; it is a debate where any generally informed member of the public should be able to judge. If you try and go over the heads of the judge or your opponent and avoid thoughtfully engaging with the resolution, I will not hesitate to drop you on that alone. You are a cancer to PF and should strongly consider moving to policy or LD.

As far as best practices go to win me over in PF (again, pretty basic stuff but I rarely see it in round): make sure you extend any offense you plan on using in the Final Focus through the summary, provide good impact calc (ex: why should I prefer saving lives over saving money?), and please give voters.

It amazes me when I hear people say "and if I have time, I'll give voters." Voters are by far the most important part of the Final Focus. You can't whine about being judge-screwed if you didn't do the work yourself and clarify what the judge should vote on.

Feel free to reach out with any questions: ashveersingh12@gmail.com

I coached LD, PF and Congress for 8 years at Chanhassen High School in Minnesota.

Reaffirmed 1-21-23

Lincoln Douglas

My entire career has been coaching at a school that does traditional-ish LD. If you want a judge with more experience in/sympathy for national-circuit-style debate, I would put me as a low pref--for no better reason than you might be disappointed with how I evaluate the round. If you are reading this, chances are rounds have already been paired and you are stuck with me. Sorry. I'll do the best I can.

If you only have a few minutes before the round and don't want to spend that time listening to my rambling I'd sum it up as follows:

Research, evidence, truth.

What I value about the activity of debate is the research and argument-creating process. I am aware of the variety of resources from which debaters can draw arguments and evidence, and I am not insensitive to the reasons why many choose to do so. However, I really disfavor debates that center around arguments and cases that I am well-aware you did not write. Stock K's, generic constructives, and canned CPs disappoint me as a coach and as an educator.

What disappoints me even more than running things that you did not research and write is when you run things that you do not understand. It doesn't take talent or care to write a punchy frontline and cut a card from Baudrillard's gibberish. I want to leave the round feeling like we have all come closer to understanding the truth, not running a race to the most obscure and convoluted.

I want to see good evidence. Please cite the author and the publication. Not all sources are equal. I expect your warrant to literally support the conclusion you state as your frontline. Sources aren't important just because somebody said them; credibility and persuasiveness rests upon credentials and, more importantly the author's logic. If you can't explain why author reaches conclusion X, you haven't created a complete warrant. If you are moving from an evidence warrant to an analytic warrant, you need to make that distinction; don't tell me the card supports your conclusion when it only does half the work. This goes for framework too. Your card doesn't say "the role of the ballot is rejecting oppression." The card says oppression is bad. You are saying that, therefore, the role of the ballot is to XYZ.

I will always be skeptical of cards about debate or written by debaters. I don't find forum or blog posts written by coaches, judges, or former debaters to be the kind of credible, disinterested evidence that we should be using in this activity.

Here is a more concrete list of the things that I do and do not want to see.

1. I don't read the wiki, I will not read your case as you run it, and making your case public ahead of the round does not give you license to run something abusive. Please don't run disclosure theory; I won't evaluate it.

2. I prefer quick and articulate over fast. I'm not adept at discerning spreading, and I will more likely let things fall through the cracks than remind you every 15 seconds to slow down or speak clearly. Your call though.

3. I like kritiks and think they are a good expression of what you can do in this activity, but not all kritiks link to the resolution, and I'm not going to go for bad links. This probably means that you'll need to do more work than just pulling up your camp backfiles and reading your stock will-to-power K.

4. I think formalized theory arguments dumb down debate.

5. I don't think plans are actually affirming, but I'd entertain somebody who wanted to change that perspective

6. Counterplans are cool.

7. Do not argue with me after the round. You're debating your opponent, you accept that I'm the expert. I assume that the losing team is going to say that I'm wrong.

8. I don't like performance or narrative. I'd prefer substance debate.

I'm not as grumpy as this paradigm makes me seem, and I am a qualified and experienced judge.

Public Forum
I coach IE as well as debate, and I specialize in Oratory and Extemp Speaking. My ideal PF round would have the content and argumentation of Extemp with the oratory skills of OO. That is my 30. Unfortunately, I know that a lot of teams sacrifice oratory skills to get in more information, and that is fine with me. Speak fast, but don’t get into LD/Policy territory.

I’m all about weighing. Rarely can a team eliminate all offense from their opponents, so this requires some sort of weighing metric. Magnitude = Probability x Scope. That how I teach my kids, but you can weigh however you’d like, just make sure you do it.

Things I hate in PF: 1) Supercharged impacts. I know that thermonuclear holocaust is a bigger impact than a loss in GDP, but that doesn’t mean that you can find a link from Public Subsidies to nuclear war. If it is a stretch, I will do my best to find a way to vote against it. 2) Complicated framework. Cost/Benefit is the default framework for PF. If you want to argue deontology, you are in the wrong event. That being said, I understand that different resolutions require certain limits on the debate. Be fair and don’t try to rule out arguments rather than debate them. 3) Assuming the judge will intervene. I’ve seen this run rampant in my local circuit—teams trying to refute their opponents by reading a card and then moving onto the next argument. I need you to tell me what to do with your arguments. I will do everything I can to stay completely out of the debate. If you need me to do your work for you, we’ll have a rough round.
Besides that, I am a straight-forward PF judge. Debate the issues in the resolution, don’t try any semantic hocus pocus.

I am a lay judge who has been judging various categories of speech and debate for five years. I am a higher education administrator and an attorney.

In PF I appreciate a well reasoned argument and a respectful discourse. I prefer that the question be clearly addressed. If your arguments are too theoretical and off topic, I will not be judging in your favor.

In judging LD I prefer fairly straight forward cases that are clear and directly connected to the topic. If you are going to argue theory, it needs to be connected to the topic you you risk losing me. Similarly, counter plans are OK as long as I can follow the connection to the resolution. Spreading is a risky proposition because if I can't follow and understand what you are saying I can't score it.