Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

-It's either Aff prep or Neg prep - No one preps for free.

-Text, from a debater I just judged to their coach, who is a friend of mine: “What is your friend on? He started my timer early because I took a deep breath.” Me: I'm gonna put that in my Paradigm!

-I do want to be on the email chain, but I won't be reading along with your speech doc - timalderete@yahoo.com

-I am cantankerous about Prep time - for me, it ends when you hit Send on the Email.

-The majority of my decisions will revolve around a lack of flowing or line by line structure.

-I will vote for most any coherent argument. A "coherent" argument must be one that I can defend to the team or debater who lost. Many think this makes me interventionist, but you don't pref me anyway.

-I not the best judge for bad arguments, the Politics Disad, or dumb theory. I will try to take them as seriously as you do, but everyone has their limits. (For example, I have never voted for disclosure theory, because I have never heard an intelligent argument defending it.)

-I do not vote for unethical arguments. The "Contact Information Disclosure" argument is dangerous and unethical because it abets online predators. It will receive a loss and minimum points.

-I don't give great speaker points. To compensate, if you show me decent flows you can get up to an extra point. Please do this Before I enter the ballot.

-I "can handle" your "speed" and I will only call "Clearer" once or twice if you are unclear.

-I have judged and coached a lot of LD rounds – I like philosophical arguments more than you may expect.

-I have judged and coached a lot of Policy rounds – I tend to think like a Policy debater.

Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

Sam Bemis

Background: 2 years CX and 1 year LD for Hillcrest High School, currently coaching for Jordan High School

(Because I'm only judging LD for Silver and Black, my paradigm will only cover LD for now)

Overview: I value both traditional and progressive debate; my only preference is that you debate the form with which you are most comfortable. That being said, I believe that debaters should be able to run all types of arguments, so I am willing to vote on anything as long as it is clearly explained, defended, and impacted (or whatever your framework says it has to be). I rely heavily on my flow, so if you are organized and prove to me how you win on the flow I am most likely going to vote for you.

Specifics:

Speed: Judges lie about how fast they can flow, so slow down on your taglines. If I say "CLEAR" more than two times, I will stop writing. 

Prep: Flex prep is fine. If you don't use all your time I will think you are pompous. Prep ends when your USB leaves the port.

CP: Great! You need a plan text, and be ready to prove competition.

Theory: I believe theory is a legitimate way to check abuse, so if you are unable to prove in-round abuse or don't clearly explain your voters, you probably won't win that argument. Theory debates, when correctly structured and warranted, can be very interesting and useful, but it makes me sad when it is used as a time suck. 

Framework: Insofar as I've seen, framework or Value/Criterion is underutilized. When frameworks are argued and impacted, my heart smiles. Be sure to tell me why you've won the framework debate, and how that puts the ballot in your favor. 

Kritiks: I think K's are fantastic, but please don't expect me to know your obscure Kritik right away. If you can't get me to understand it in-round, then you probably shouldn't be running it. In my opinion, which has been heavily influenced by my Policy background, and argument is not a Kritik unless it has an alternative. If you run a "critical" argument but don't have an alternative, I will evaluate it as a DA to the case (which is what it is, really).

Traditional: I love a good traditional debate! Debating "traditionally" doesn't exclude you from theoretical or highly philosophical argumentation, it really just means you are speaking more slowly and avoiding technical jargon. I have seen some highly-skilled traditional debaters beat progressive debaters, and that is exciting.

Speaker points: Speaker points are more a reflection of your speaking style and organization. If you are professional, considerate, organized, and make intelligent arguments, you will get high speaker points. 30 means you were close to flawless, 29.5 means you were probably the best I've seen in a tournament, 29 is impressive, 28 is close to great, 27 is average, 26 means you didn't impress me, and 25 and below means you probably have some things to work on and/or were rude.

Body Language: I try to give non-verbal feedback. I will nod if I agree, roll my eyes or make a scrunched face if I disagree, roll my eyes or tap my pen if I think you should move on, and flow vigorously when you are saying things of importance. 

Miscellaneous: Please don't shake my hand! I love that everyone is friendly, but sickness is not something I would like to share.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to email me: bemissam@gmail.com

I look forward to judging you! I believe that judges are obligated to work, learn, and listen in a round, and everyone in that round deserves to be respected and appreciated. Debate is a fantastic space and activity, and I hope to facilitate an exciting and educational experience. 

I try my best to be a blank slate. I am open to any type of argument, as long it is well-developed. Speed is fine as long as you are articulate enough to understand, but I do prefer depth over quantity. Your opponent’s points are valid until you prove them otherwise, but don’t waste your own time responding disproportionately to a weak argument. Provide me with clear voting issues. 

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

I'm a coach focusing primarily on PF and LD. My preference is on a traditional style of LD with strong connections of contentions to your V/C. My ballot will normally go to whoever can show they best link up to the  winning value in the round (hint: try to show me why you can achieve both).I'm ok with a fair amount of speed (8/10), but if you want your tag lines to make my flow keep them short or slow down a bit for them.

There is not a huge progressive focus on our circuit, so I'm not overly experienced with progressive LD styles, but I've judged a fair amount of CX and am not entirely closed off to the idea of progressive strategies. I'm not overly familiar with a lot of the theory arguments that are being run, so don't expect me to grasp your advanced esoteric theory arguments without explaining them well (please share cases with me if possible). Additionally, if you a re running CPs be sure you can prove uniqueness, or if running Ks they are not absurd. I want reasonable arguments, and the less reasonable they are, the easier they are to be taken down.

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.

History: I debated for CSU Long Beach for 3 years in Parlimentary debate and coached for San Marino High school for 3 years.

Tl;dr version:

email: chng.lrn@gmail.com

I am a hack for theory.

I type really slow.

I'm fine with most strategies.

Speaks: 30-29 you should be in late elims, 29-28 You should break, 28-27 I'm sorry I might be the reason you get 4-2 screwed.

Regular version:

I am generally of the belief that what debate should be is up to the debaters. I assume the position of a policymaker unless told otherwise. This means I heavily value impact weighing through timeframe probability magnitude within normative frameworks.

Coming from parliamentary debate there are a few shortcomings that I make a genuine effort to compensate for. The most obvious is the use of carded evidence. My process is first I look at what I wrote down, then I compare how arguments interact, and then compare if the evidence says what I wrote down. If there is a discrepancy between what I wrote down and what the cards say I will default to what I wrote down. The exception to this rule is on theory. In high school ld is way too fast for me to write down more than taglines. I would appreciate it if you slowed down significantly and clearly repeat any interpretation. Otherwise, I will evaluate what I write down.

Speed is typically not a problem for me however keep in mind that I default to what I write down. If your style is to sacrifice clarity for speed on cards I will probably miss some stuff. This problem has also occurred for scripted analytics where its usually too late for me to call clear. I have had the most problems with flowing long stream of conscious overviews and multiple planks in advocacies.

The types of debate I like to see tend to be theory heavy first and K heavy second. I really enjoy T debates and framework debates.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations. I think blocks that don't consider the context they are being used is unpersuasive. I think specificity is a necessary pre-requisite for offense on theory. I generally think education outweighs fairness and that rounds that are unfair don't entirely preclude the possibility of education. Some theory positions I have reservations against.

- Disclosure I believe is a good practice however the way the the position is deployed against schools that genuinely don't know about the wiki or people who are new to debate is problematic to me.

- Whole res is not a spicy argument to me but I would still vote for it.

- Rvi's on T I think need more than theoretical abuse. Unless you can show the 1nc is uniquely excessive and abusive then I don't think I'd vote here.

K: For reference I debated a lot of Lacan, Colonialism, and Cap. I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand arguments I haven't heard before. I think the aff should attempt to be in the direction of the resolution. I am open to performance debates and more non-traditional types of debate. I admit I'm fairly inexperienced in judging performance v performance rounds. Competing framing arguments need to be compared very clearly for me. If one team is saying ontology first a response that just says fiat is good is not sufficient as an answer. I default to theory coming before k framing but I am persuaded otherwise quite frequently.

Cp: The only thing I have to say about counterplans is I have a predisposition that excessive planks (2+) pics are really abusive which amounts to me giving more leeway to the perm.

Last notes:

I'd say that I am really really slow at typing. You can ask me to flow on paper especially in outrounds and if my hand is doing alright then I'd be happy to oblige. I think that taglines delivered at a pace of roughly 300 wpm is perfectly comfortable for me. On paper you can go as fast as you want I'll call clear/slow appropriately.

I think I have really expressive non-verbals.

I hold people to the text of their interpretations, role of the ballot/judge, plan/cp, permutations. I don't think condo good is a sufficient counter-interpretation on condo, I don't think perm do both/the cp/the alt are enough.

please be nice

I'll start prep if for whatever reason it is taking an absurd amount of time to start your speech.

toss me on that email chain: aacchapman2@gmail.com

I graduated from UCLA in 2019. I coached LD for 4 years at Harker. I work in a volunteer capacity with the Heights now. That said, I have always had a lower threshold for speed. I'll yell slow twice then I stop flowing until I can comprehend the argument.

I am the most familiar with policy/framework/theory arguments. I won't vote on an RVI on T

Practices Trigger Warnings

Debaters reading positions about suicide, depression/specific mental health, sexual violence, or any similarly traumatic issue, the onus is on them to ask those in the room permission to read the position. Spectators may leave, but judges and opponents do not have that option, meaning there is an expectation that if one of them objects to the triggering subject, that the debater will not read that position. If a debater does not adjust their strategy after being asked to, they will start the round with a 25. If you do not ask before round, but someone is triggered, speaks will similarly be docked. If there is no trigger warning but no one is triggered, the round can continue as normal.

The question for what necessitates a trigger warning is difficult to objectively delineate - if you have a reasonable suspicion someone could be negatively impacted by your position, ask before you read it - explicit narratives are probably a good starting point here. Trigger warnings are contentious in debate but I've seen students negatively impacted in rounds because they were not present and have engaged in conversations with other coaches that lead me to conclude something along these lines is necessary. At the very least, debate is (or should be) a 'safe space', and I believe this is a necessary first step towards achieving that goal. Feel free to discuss this before the round if you are worried it will become an issue in round.

This (admittedly strangely) probably means I'm not the judge for "must read a trigger warning" shells - they often make debate rounds uncomfortable and i have seen them leveraged in ways that make debate spaces unsafe - if no one was triggered, don't spend your time on that shell.

https://medium.com/@erikadprice/hey-university-of-chicago-i-am-an-academic-1beda06d692e#.bqv2t7lr6

This article is very good at articulating my views on the importance of trigger warnings
It is not up for debate that if someone was triggered on account of your failure to adequately make use of trigger warnings, you'll be punished through speaks and/or the ballot

[Evidence Ethics]

1. Things I will drop a debater on whether or not their opponent brings it up: Card clipping, mis-representing the authors claims, grossly misrepresenting a cite (Use discretion here - but a completely missing site would seem to qualify here). The round stops if I notice this happen, or if the opponent brings up this claim. If the opponent brings forward this claim, I will evaluate the claim after the round has stopped.
2. Things I believe should be debated out (with the caveat here that it's an uphill battle - I think these are good norms): Other disclosure norms (not including the whole paragraph in a cut card, broken links, etc).
3. If you expect the round to be stopped (Category #1, or Category #2 but its a panel) I expect clear standards/arguments in a doc emailed out laying out the evidence claim, and specifically, why I should vote on it
4. I will not vote on evidence ethics claim that hedge on the TFA constitution. While I respect the TFA executive board and generally agree with most of the constitution, I think it sets a bad precedent in requiring debaters, especially in Texas, to be beholden to overarching academic councils.

[Things I would like written out before a speech]

1. Interps & Counterinterps
2. Perm texts

[Strategies I love]

1. A good internal link debate w/ deep evidence comparison
2. Having a true/stellar response to UQ or Inherency
3. Nuanced T
4. A unique plan aff that is extended the whole round & leveraged correctly

[Strategies I don't love]

1. Tricks
2. Dense Phil
3. Analytical args
4. Dense critical lit

I've done every form of debate, and I've made it to Nationals in LD and PF. I started as a very traditional debater, but moved to be one of the most progressive debaters in my circuit. Don't be afraid of running what you want. As far as LD is concerned, I want an actual comparison of values. Show me why yours is more important, or why they can't achieve theirs. Without suitable clash in the round, it is up to the judge to intervene, which is something debaters never seem to like. So don't make me do it.
Asside from that, I know LD is typically high end philosophy and confusing your opponents with big words and philosophy jargon. 2 things as far as that's concerned:
1- Base your philosophy in reality. If your advocacy is unobtainable, there's no reason to vote for it in my opinion. No matter how perfect it might be.

2- If you use one of your fancy words and assign it the wrong definition, I'll know, and it won't look good.

Policy debater at Bingham High School for 2 years

Spewing is nbd, as long as you keep tag lines/analysis/important stuff very audible. Probably won't vote for theory, but you do you. ALL DEFENSE ARGS MUST CLEARLY LINK!! Huge huge fan of impact calc. I frequently ran topicality as a debater, but don't usually vote for it. Whomever decides to run a kritik must demonstrate a full understanding of those philosophies. Remember that debate is a game! Entertainment is expected and feistiness is encouraged!

Debate Background: I debated circuit LD in Minnesota for Benilde-St. Margaret's all 4 years of high school (1999-2002).  I attended the 2002 TOC, numerous circuit tournaments, nationals (NFL, CFL), and some round robins.  I also competed in Mock Trial all throughout high school.

Professional Background: I am a full time operatic tenor and have undergraduate and graduate degrees in music.  I am also the CEO of a nonprofit called ArtSmart that provides students access to music lessons.  

General Philosophy: I am very excited to judge!  I have so many fond memories of high school debate and it has had a tremendous impact on my career.  I have judged a few tournaments over the last couple years, but am not accustomed to the current rate of speed and some of the styles of argumentation.  While I debated on the circuit in high school, I have yet to have serious exposure to Theory.  I am familiar with Plans, Counter Plans, Kritiks, and traditional Philosophical cases.  I am open to any type of argumentation, but you will need to present it in a manner that I can comprehend (slower speed) through a means that clearly articulates how your position / argumentation functions.  More specifics below.

Things You Should Do:

• CLARITY & IMPACTING.
• Definitely do "The Round Breaks Down" 30-60 seconds underview at the end of your NR and 2AR with appropriate weighing and argument interaction. 
• WELL-ARTICULATED STANDARDS AND POSITIONS.  
• Especially if you are going to present multiple positions, you need to tell me exactly what the standard for the round is and how I should judge it.  Remember, I debated during a time where everyone had values / criteria and we were just starting to hear kritiks.  If you don't break down the layers of the debate for me, then we are all going to be unhappy campers.  Plans, Counter Plans, K's, Turns, Disads, Straight Refutation are all welcome.
• ALWAYS RUN SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS OVER THEORY.  
• Unless your opponent is being abusive, always err on the side of substantive arguments with me because I have not had a lot of exposure to Theory.  If you feel the need to run Theory, explain explain explain and go slow. 
• SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS, CARDS, and TRANSITIONS.
• If it's not on my flow, I'm not voting on it.  Slow down for author names and tags.  Also, if you have more than 1 position, clearly label the transition and type of argument you are presenting.  For example: "China Disadvantage" or "Space Counterplan."
• VOIR DIRE ME BEFORE THE ROUND.  
• If you have a question or something you'd like to clarify, please ask.  I welcome any discussions about what is appropriate for the round with both debaters present.
• BE PASSIONATE AND PERSUASIVE.
• I recognize that persuasion comes in many forms, but I am a performer at heart.  Do not be afraid to be passionate, loud, and confident.  

Things You Should NOT Do:

• ASSUME I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CURRENT 'DEBATE NORMS'.  
• Do not say things like "Theory comes before Kritik" or "All Kritiks must have a tangible alternative" without explaining what you mean and an argument for why I should prefer your interpretation.  
• USE EXCESSIVE JARGON. 
• I will not be familiar with a lot of the current debate abbreviations.  Whenever possible, use plain speak (this will also garner you higher speaker points). 
• RUN FRIVOLOUS THEORY.
• You've been warned.
• GO AT LIGHTNING SPEED.
• I will be flowing on paper and I'm telling you now I won't be able to handle it. 
• TRICKS / OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS.
• Always be respectful of your opponent and do not make ad hominem attacks or any arguments that would create an unsafe space for your opponent.  I reserve the right to intervene and use my ballot as a stance against any racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, or positions that argue oppression good. Debate is fun and educational, not a place for torment or bullying. 

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fee%2CSean

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

I am retired now after coaching debate for over thirty years. I also debated in high school and college. I coached all events but always focused on debate before anything else in my program. I have taken students to nationals in all events so I know my way around a flow sheet and rely heavily on it to make my decision in a debate round. If I look confused or stop flowing it means arguments are not clearly labeled or coming too fast and I can't get them down. If that happens, those arguments won't be a part of my final decision.

I like to see the round start on time and good manners all around. I expect students in LD and PF to be good speakers but will not punish them for speed.

Please don't ask me tho shake hands at the end of the round. It's just not what I do.

I am a parent from Boise, Idaho and this is my fourth year of judging LD and PF. We don't see many students running progressive cases so my LD experience is almost all traditional. 

I believe effective communication is important, but I can handle some speed as long as you emphasize your case framework.  Please give me clear and distinct taglines for value, criterion, contentions etc so I can keep up and flow the round.  I also strive for a tabula rasa (blank slate) perspective, setting aside my personal knowledge and opinions.  I base my judgement on the information you provide during the round and your ability to present and support your case while refuting your opponent's case.

I'm looking for logical connections between your VC and contentions, enough evidence to demonstrate your logic, definitions (especially if your case depends on a particular interpretation of ambiguous or esoteric terms in the resolution), clash that shows me the gaps in your opponent's case, and voters.  Although I haven't heard many, I'm open to progressive cases, but I still want to hear the logic in a narrative and clear explanations of links and impacts in kritiks.

While I am a "mommy judge" I have learned from my two debating high schoolers, one policy debater the other PF, to follow flow and be comfortable with speed. I appreciate well organized thought and strong rebuttals. I work hard to take notes so I can keep up with the arguments in order to form my win/lose decision.

When it comes to K debate vs. traditional LD, I am not well-versed in kritikal arguments, theory, or progressive LD. However, I do not think this matters. I will vote on the strength of sound data, well organized thoughtful argument, and critical rebuttal of the opposing case, not what argument resonates with me. Long story short, tech over truth. Run whatever you want, you do you. But if I look lost, I probably am, and you should take a little bit of CX or speech time to explain your arguments. You will always be able to judge where I'm following and what I like based on my facial expressions; I am not very good at playing poker.

Like I said, I'm good with speed, but please make sure you are clear. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your arguments, which makes me a lot less likely to vote for you.

No matter what, please be polite to your teammates and competitors.

andreahaas@me.com

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

EXPERIENCE: 

I have six children, am a devoted mother, and have a bachelors degree in biochemistry. I did not participate in debate in high school, and I have very little experience judging or participating in debate. You would probably call me a traditional judge. Most accurately, you could call me a mom judge. :) In my son's terms: I have a very high minimum threshold for arguments and will usually have a fairly general analysis and RFD, as I won't follow the line-by-line debate precisely. I love debate when it helps you see the strong points of both sides of an issue, and you are able to recognize that most problems have pros and cons of both sides. I'm also fascinated by current events and enjoy the debate topics. 

THE GENERAL PARADIGM:
I want to see that you're thinking about both your case and your opponents case, and that you can point out the most important aspects of each side. I will flow and watch for you answering your opponents arguments and advancing your own. I want to see that you recognize that some arguments are more important than others and that you can identify the most crucial parts of both cases. You can demonstrate your recognition for what matters by how you spend your time and which issues you highlight in cross-examination and follow-up speeches.

Both logic and evidence should support your arguments. I tend to ignore or dismiss extremist statements that don't make sense, or have no solid evidence. For example, if you simply state "Capitalism is the root cause of all impacts," and then spew a warrant that neither you or I truly understand, I'm probably not going to believe that capitalism causes all suffering. But if you clearly explain, citing evidence and using sound logic, why capitalism as a system promotes suffering and causes other forms of oppression, then I will buy the argument. 

Finally, be respectful. I have no patience for rudeness, yelling, or personal attacks against your opponent. 

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS:
I prefer debates about the topic, supported by evidence, and some explanation in your own words and understanding about what matters in your case. A kritik should have a solid connection to the actual topic and not used as a way to avoid preparing evidence and to avoid debating the real topic. 

SPEED:
No, I cannot handle your speed. Slow down to normal speaking level. I'll follow best if you state your taglines clearly. As long as I'm madly taking notes, I'm following, and I'll signal clearly if I can't understand you at all. Speed is not a substitute for being able to highlight and explain what matters about your arguments and your opponents arguments. 

EXPERIENCE: 
I'm married with children, have a master's degree, read widely, and enjoy current events.  In high school, I competed with one year of policy and one year of LD and several individual events, such as oratory, humorous interpretation, extemp, and dramatic interpretation. I love debate because it helps you see that most issues have pros and cons on both sides. 


THE GENERAL PARADIGM:
I want to see that you can recognize and point out the most important aspects of both cases, and that your points are supported by both logic and evidence. I will flow and watch for you answering your opponents arguments and advancing your own. 

Be respectful. I will automatically vote against rudeness or ad hominem attacks. 

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS:
I prefer debates about the topic, supported by evidence, and some explanation in your own words and understanding about what matters in the round.  I might entertain a kritik or other philosophy if it has a reasonable connection to the actual topic and includes evidence.

SPEED:
I can handle moderate speed, but have good diction and state your outline markers clearly.  As long as I'm taking notes, I'm following, and I'll put down my pen if I can't understand you at all. 

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

this is the first tournament i've judged in 2 years

i was a K debater in policy and LD and ran nontopical affs all the time so if you've got something "weird" you wanna run i'd love to see it

currently expecting to just hear about nuke war nonstop for two days so i'd love for that to not happen

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 judged high school debate in LD and PF before so I am experienced, but I am still parent judge. This is my second year judging high school competitive debate.
I prefer no spreading and it is likely in your best interest to not spread because I can't vote for someone I don't understand.
I am ok with policy arguments as long as their function in the debate is clearly explained. If you read a counterplan, tell me why it negates the resolution, and if you make a permutation tell me why that means the aff wins.
Kritiks are also alright as long as they are well explained and not too complex.
I would advise against T and theory unless your opponent clearly deserves to lose. (Even so, if T and theory is really necessary I would have voted against the violator anyway so its just a waste of time). 
Crystalization in the last few speeches is very helpful.
I give speaker points on who I think did the better speaking. I won't give lower than a 26 unless you are unecessarily rude. If you are nice you are looking at around a 28 and being a good speaker adds more to that.
I will not vote for blantantly offensive debaters.

Be clear and be kind.

I will only disclose if requested by both debaters

I coach at Eagle High School in Idaho.  Our team participates in CX, LD and PF.  I hold no preferences regarding the style of LD ran in the round.  However, I do possess certain preferences about debate in general as well as what I expect for specific styles of LD.

In all rounds, clarity is crucial.  I do not oppose introducing lots of arguments, but I need to comprehend what a debater is advocating.  Articulation—especially on tags—is essential.  Regardless of the number of arguments introduced in the round, I expect debaters to sign post and respond line-by-line on the flow.  The only exception to this falls in rebuttals when I expect clear voters for why I should prefer one position over another; I still want debaters to address significant points from the line-by-line as they summarize the flow.  I strongly dislike interventionists who make arguments on the ballot for the debaters to make their RFD; even more disconcerting are rounds in which the debaters force me to become an interventionist because they do not provide impact calculus.  If I spend a lot of time filling out the ballot after the round, I probably am deciding how I should weigh the impacts while attempting to intervene as little as possible.

With traditional LD, I do not like cases which give the appearance of a value/criterion approach but actually provide a plan (criterion) and solvency (value).  If debaters prefer policy style cases they should run them rather than masking them in a traditional case.  I expect the criterion to provide a weighing mechanism to analyze which of two values/actions/positions proves superior.  Thus, debaters should weigh all arguments introduced in the round and provide me with impact calculus so that I know which of the two positions I should prefer.  If topicality becomes an issue, I expect the negative to follow a CX approach (counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters).

I do not hold preconceived notions on the structure to which a progressive case should adhere, but I do expect debaters to demonstrate a strong understanding of them (especially during cross-examination).  Any critical cases or kritiks need a clear link to the resolution and a clear story so I can actually follow your position.  (I realize that a plethora of pressing issues prove worthy of discussion, but I come to the round expecting to actually learn about the topic.)  I tend to vote more on post fiat implications and impacts—because it permits me to weigh both debaters’ arguments—but understand that some circumstances call for pre-fiat or theory implications.  I will vote on such kritiks or theory arguments, but I will hold them to a very high standard if it means that by accepting them I must exclude weighing both debaters’ impacts to reach my decision.

I welcome questions before the round for clarification.

Updated for NU 22

NOTE: I have not thought about debate since the 2022 NDT. I am excited to be back but know that these rounds will be the first time I am hearing about Legal Personhood.

Yes Email Chain brent.lamb97@gmail.com

The short version

I am a judge who will vote for essentially any argument. I am as likely to vote on FW versus K affs than I am to vote for impact turns on FW. Simply put, run whatever arguments you are the most comfortable with and dont feel the need to change your style for me.

I will say that because of my debating style I am much more experienced in Policy v Policy and Policy v K debates but I still view K v K debate as amazing and will be excited whenever I get a chance to judge one of those rounds! NOTE: I am super inexperienced at Pomo debates. I have and will continue to vote for them IF I can understand them, pref me if you read those arguments at your own risk.

I think it is important as I judge more rounds to note areas that I have noticed that have become more important to me. The biggest thing I have noticed is debate is a communication event as a result I place a higher premium on communication than some other judges do. Don't read great evidence and leave it at that but rather connect it to the debate round as a whole. I am a judge who loves judge instruction and telling me how I should evaluate arguments or impacts is going to put you in a much better position than simply hoping that I will follow your same line of thinking.

The long version: Most of these comments below are my specific thoughts. Things like DA's and CP's are pretty straightforward. Have a link for the DA and be able to solve some or all the aff with the CP.

Tech over truth: If an argument goes conceded and you impacted it well enough and explain why I should vote for it, I will.

Speed: I have a high threshold for speed and will yell clear out twice in a speech before I stop flowing. That being said with this year most likely being all on Zoom it is important to go at a speed that everyone can understand online. I recommend 80% of your normal speed but you know what works best for you.

K-affs: This is an area where I have experience in but was never my main focus during debate. K's and K affs are the areas where I am the most likely not to vote on an argument because I did not understand it. All that means is to make sure to explain your argument and dont assume that I will fill in the gaps with the same level of knowledge that you all have.

I prefer affs that are in the direction of the topic (that doesn't mean defending USFG action) but affs that are not in the direction of the topic are still able to win my ballot if it is well debated.

K-aff's Vs T/FW: My opinion of what arguments against framework that I find persuasive is still very malleable. All that really means is answer framework in whatever way you think is the most strategic. Reading my advice on T/FW vs K-aff's will give you a good idea of what I find important and being able to beat those arguments will put you in a good place in the debate. Affirmative teams usually win against T/FW in front of me when you prove that the neg's interp excludes the possibility of being able to discuss your scholarship (got to beat the TVA), combined with offense.

After judging multiple framework vs K aff rounds I have come to find that I am more persuaded by whatever team does better impact comparison (why does fairness outweigh education or vice versa?). I will also say that I am less persuaded by general debate bad arguments. I agree that the community is messed up and there is a lot we can do to improve it but saying that debate provides no benefit is a harder sell. If that is your A strat you are not out of luck instead it just requires you to invest more time in this argument if you would like to win it. In general impact turning, T/FW is very viable in front of me.

T/FW vs K-aff's: Im relatively open to all type of negative impacts for framework. I am much more persuaded by T impacts that are centered around skill-building or resolution focus good compared to impacts such as fairness but again am open to any impact. TVA's are pretty much must haves and at the very least make your odds of winning much higher.

K's: Just like above I have some experience but it was not my main focus. Having links to the aff and winning impact calc and/or framework will put you in a good spot.

Going for CP's: I default to no judge kick unless told otherwise.

Theory: Theory is a tool that is underutilized by a lot of aff teams Neg's get away with a lot and needs some checks. Condo theory I view as a reason to reject the team. I am more lenient on reject the arg with everything non-condo but I can be convinced why reading those CP's in the first place is a reason to reject the team. I enjoy theory debates less typed out/reading blocks and more engaging on the line by line and vision of debate.

Topicality for policy affs: Having a specific violation and examples of in round abuse puts you in a better place than just a generic T-shell. Also in the later speeches if you are still going for it, make sure to explain what a world of your interp looks like (What affs are aloud, why are only those affs good for debate, etc)

Impact Turns: Love them and think they are underutilized as well. I have had experience with impact turns from Heg bad to Nuke war good.

Random Info

Prep: I do not count flashing/emailing as prep, as soon as your document is finished you can stop prep. If I see you stealing prep I will call you out once and then start the clock for your prep.

Language: Your language matters racist,homophobic,abelistic,misgendering language is probelmatic just be kind to people.

Clipping cards: If someone is accused of clipping cards the round will stop, you must have video evidence and make the claim in the round. Clipping cards causes an instant loss and low speaks. Accidents happen just make sure you are reading everything you said you read. Mark where you said to mark.

If you have any questions before the round don't be afraid to ask!

Brent

Last Updated for Copper Classic 2018.

Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute

TOPLINE

With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.

I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.

SHORT

Background: I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.

Things I like: Voters, clash, impact weighing, topical links, critical arguments, real world application, link turns, really good case debate, being polite. Impacts that don't include nuclear war.

Things I dislike: Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Don't further exasperate the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Failure to signpost, stealing prep time, not articulating the link = impact level. Feel free to ask further questions.

How I view a Debate: I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

LONG

--------------------MISC. Important Things---------------------

• If you think something runs even the slightest risk of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning.
• If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
• Need to win the link to win the impact
• Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
• Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
• Someone told me I didn't give a single 30 all last year, that's probably true.
• I flow straight down on an excel sheet. - I very much vote off the flow
• Dropped arguments are important
• I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am. Use that to your advantage.
• Don't make args outside of your social location - I don't want to hear white people read Wilderson.
• I call for cards probably more often than i should.
• Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
• As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
• CX is binding.

---------------------- Policy ---------------------------

Affs:

• Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, but don't assume I am going to weigh the impacts of your affirmative out for you.

PTX Affs:

• Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the affirmative as a mechanism to outweigh.

Performance:

• I am very fond of these arguments
• I need warrants as to how/what the performance does. Specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if I endorse you/your method with the ballot.
• Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic. Some form of topical link/semi-topical link is preferred and makes that a lot easier.
• Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me.

Neg Strats:


T:

• Things such as fairness and education are rarely genuine and I hate the time suck that T is becoming.
• Theory/Topicality is almost always a question of access to the debate. I’m very skeptical of your ground, limits, education arguments when you’re reading the same shell you’ve read all year in addition to 3 other off-case positions.
• I find myself often defaulting to T as a question of reasonability when not specifically framed as competing interpretations. If you point out that your Aff is on open-evidence and its the same aff literally everyone is reading (I.E the drones aff from a few years ago) +1 speaks.
• This doesn’t mean never read T in front of me. I think theory arguments are incredibly important when there is evidence of actual abuse or a discrepancy between access to the debate. Accessibility is almost always automatically a voting issue.

The K:

• My favorite type of debate - I am familiar with substantial portions of lots of different types of the literature.
• if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved.
• Have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also win the link, i'm not giving you access to other parts of the argument if the link articulation is extremely clear.
• Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.
• Historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack an above average articulation on the alternative. Tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?)
• Super familiar with: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem
• Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.

CP/DA:

• Unique, reasonable scenarios > rehashed shells with somewhat recent uniqueness updates.
• PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff.
• Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.

Politics:

• All I ask is that your politics scenarios are realistic and the Squo/Link level is well articulated.

------------------------LD-------------------------------

Write the ballot for me. Tell me what I should evaluate.

I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

Dropped arguments are the easiest place for me to vote in LD

Theory: I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.
That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for debaters who may be disadvantaged.

Condo: I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.

"Become the link-turn to the disads in your own community."

Wirtjoleonard@mail.weber.edu
I would like to be on your email chain.

I judged many years of debate and IE events except policy. I can handle any speed but do not like the speed of progressive policy. Every event has its rules and structures, I like road map and framework, they help a lot to see whether the person or the team is sticking with their flow.

LD, l look for things that whether the value and value criterion line up with their contentions. Evidence credible or not. Speaker has the fire along their speech or argments but not sound yelling?

PF, team needs to know their topic well. Time management on speech whether things are well organized by FW or flow, evidence always important in PF. Wrong information under my knowledge, definitely out some points from me. Plan should not be spending time during in PF, it is not policy event. Speaker point should be high with high convincing tone and voice but not yelling.

Please do not spend time in rule argument, I want hear your opinions on the topic!

I am a college student that debated all four years in high school. I did Policy for two years, LD for one year, and Public Forum for another year. I qualified for nationals in various speech and debate events and achieved quite a bit of success in high school. Speed is totally cool with me, but I want real warrants provided for each claim you give me, and I care about well-developed links just as much as I care about well-calculated impacts. I am fine with kritical arguments as long as you actually know your philosophies and do not completely misconstrue these philosophies in a attempt to simply win the round. 

Updated January 2024

Debate is the best game ever invented and we are all lucky to play it.

My name is Mat Marr and I am the Director of Forensics for Able2Shine and manager of the BASIS Fremont team.

Background: I debated policy in high school for three years including nationals. I qualified for nationals all four years in Foreign Extemp. I switched to LD my senior year and qualified for Tournament of Champions after a strong season on the national circuit. In college my partner and I broke at Parli nationals as freshmen. (Summary, I was decent at debate 20 years ago, but not the best, and I have some experience with all the styles but from judging and coaching in recent years and I am enjoying how debate is evolving.)

I try to be a pure flow judge. I don't flow CX.

Make sure you tell me where to record your arguments and use numbering, so I can track them. Be clear and direct in your refutations to your opponents arguments.

I have no strong biases for or against certain arguments (as a judge). That also means I do not assume impacts, such as topicality being a voter, unless argued in round. Tell me why your arguments are superior in reasoning and/or evidence.

I am fine with speed within reason but think its tactical value is limited.

Most importantly remember what a privilege it is to be able to spend our time debating and treat each other with respect. Thus, please be polite, inclusive and friendly and make the most of the opportunity to debate the important issues in a safe and supportive environment.

Good skill and have fun.

Specific event notes:

Parli- Please take a few questions in each constructive speech.

ToC Parli- I will not protect against new arguments in rebuttal if you choose not to use your point of order. I will vote for any well-argued position but generally enjoy topic specific policy debates.

Public Forum- Feel free to answer rebuttal as the second speech.

I am happy to discuss flows after rounds, find me and we can talk.

For email chains feel free to use my email : AshlandDebateTeam@gmail.com

I expect to see value debate. If you speak fast you run the risk of me not understanding your point. Do your best to present coherent and appropriate arguments to attack your opponent's case. I value well layed out, clear arguments.

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

I prefer using a traditional paradigm/flow but will accept any form as long as language and organization is comprehensible. Progressive structures are permitted. Spreading/Spewing is welcome as long as speech does not overlap and the debater retains the ability to be understood. Spewing is permitted as long as both judge and opponent can understand what is being said. 

I enjoy warrants, clarity, and students being polite to one another.

CX=Aff's should read a plan. Neg' should read a DA/CP strategy. I enjoy T debates. I find most K debates have far less discussion of the alternative than I would prefer. I default to being a policy-maker.

LD=I prefer traditional LD. Framework debates are key in front of me.

PF=Warrants, not taglines. Don't yell at each other in grand cross-fire. Impact analysis determines my ballot often. I do not tolerate "footnoting" evidence. You must read the entirety of the evidence in front of me.

If you have questions, please ask!

My debate background= Eagle HS (01-05, CX Debate), ISU (05-09, CX Debate), ISU (2010, Coaching), UNLV (2010-2012, Coaching), Centennial High School (2012-Present, Coaching).

I have judged LD and other high school debates for more than six years.  I debated at a high school level.  I am an attorney and well-versed in conflicting and persuasive arguments.  

• While I am not a "blank slate", I do my best to suspend my own beliefs and biases to hear your arguments and positions - I will never judge affirmative or negative simply because I agree or disagree with you.  
• I value good communicators - eloquence and clarity of speech is essential for people to understand your arguments. 
• Evidence is valuable but not critical - I like good evidence because it moves you beyond your opinion to substantial arguments.   
• Logic is key; emotion and anecdotes are not usually convincing. 
• I flow arguments and vote according to who has carried the most important arguments (in other words, a tally of arguments, "I carried five sub points, the opponent only carried two." will not carry the debate).  
• Be credible.  In debate, as in life, if you are not credible, you will not convince anyone.  
• If you speak so quickly that I cannot take notes, I won't be able to keep a flow, and you may not carry points that would otherwise convince me.
• Plans or counterplans need not solve 100% of the issue, but should provide a solution which is better than the status quo and which do not provide different harms (substituting one bad thing for another doesn't solve anything).
• I award speaker points based on presentation, which includes clarity of speech, organized presentation, professionalism and attitude.  If you are rude or scornful to your opponent, I deduct from your speaker point position - even if I think you are winning the round.

I love a good argument and critical thinking!  I look forward to seeing you and hearing you debate!

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 pretty simple and will keep this brief. I probably won't cover your specific arguments, so ask me your question in-round or beforehand by email/Facebook.

Updated for Alta 2017 (LD)

I tend to be more at home with progressive debate, but you do you. I'll follow along. Be kind to your opponents. I won't time you, mostly out of consideration for the fact that I have never once not failed at signaling time.

My paradigm when judging LD and judging policy are very similar, and I do not believe there are significant differences in how the two events should be judged.

Because it's always asked, I am comfortable with your Ks, on either side. Be familiar with your literature, though.

Unless you say otherwise, I will default to competing interpretations. I am not a fan of hypothetical harms.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Olsen%2CNick

I did LD in high school and preferred a progressive style. I can handle speed, and will give an audible "clear" if I cannot understand you. COMPREHENSIVE UNDER VIEWS AND CLEAR EXTENSIONS. Do not extend a point hidden in the interior of a card that was not stressed prior. I think that spreading through key parts of evidence (tags and crucial lines) is abusive, especially when an opponent does not seem comfortable with speed. 

Original arguments delight me, and VERY original arguments delight me more! Make me laugh I like that.

Racism/ Sexism/ Homophobia/ Classicism/ other offensive "isms" are not original.

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. Simple Ballot Strategy: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat.

Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance: I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.

Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy. I may have (some, slight) sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, but very little.

RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.

Theory, rightly, checks abuses. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Cross-Ex: I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.

Rebuttals: Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.

Win/loss/Points Disclosures: If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.

Judges should be accountable for their decisions. Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.

(Updated 10/14/15)
Asst LD Coach @ Loyola High School
Coached Loyola the past 10 years.
Judged numerous TOC level outrounds including the TOC and TOC outrounds as well.

Flashing/Prep
I will give an extra minute of prep for flashing/emailing but it is included in prep.

Speed
It's important to know that I flow by hand. The arguments show up on my flow in proportion to the amount of understanding I have of them, which is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend making the argument.

RFDs
At the end of the day my decision is almost entirely technical. I formulate my RFDs in almost an entirely technical manner. I vote for the side with more offense to the relevant framework.

Argument Evaluation
If there's more than one framework, layer the frameworks. If you're not the only one with offense to that framework THEN WEIGH THE OFFENSE. I absolutely abhor injecting my own beliefs into the debate round. Ideally, my RFD will just be me saying back to you only things that have been said in the round. I generally do as little embedded clash as possible because it involves what I believe to be intervention. Thus, you should take it upon yourself to do as much argument comparison as possible.

Rebuttals
I highly recommends that you start with framework debate at the beginning of your rebuttals. It will make my decision easier. Also have solid overviews that evaluate the issues of the round. The overview should predict the answers to the questions I will have at the end of the round. For example, does Fairness come before the K? Does their turn link to your Deont framework? etc. Generally, the rebuttals should collapse. I'm not particularly fond of new offs in the rebuttals. The best 2ARs I've seen so far collapse to the positions the neg collapsed to and spend the 2AR weighing offense.

T/Theory
My least favorite part of judging debate rounds is T/Theory. There are two reasons. First, if you're spreading analytics its almost impossible to flow by hand. Please power tag your analytics (at least the important ones) with one or two words that I can write down. Second, no one evaluates or weighs standards level offense. Please tell me what to do with offense under each standard, for both sides. Please tell me which standard comes first and why. Then please tell me which voter comes first.

ROB
Please tell me how the ROB relates to all other frameworks. Is it pre-fiat and weighs against T? Or is it post fiat and precludes ethical frameworks. Lastly, tell me what offense links and doesn't link and how it weighs out. (Am I sounding like a broken record yet?).

Speaks
Persuasive styles, strategy, solid and compelling overviews, dominant cross-ex's, ease of decision and less prep time use.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

Scott Phillips- for email chains please use iblamebricker@gmail in policy, and ldemailchain@gmail.com for LD
Coach@ Harvard Westlake/Dartmouth

My general philosophy is tech/line by line focused- I try to intervene as little as possible in terms of rejecting arguments/interpreting evidence. As long as an argument has a claim/warrant I can explain to your opponent in the RFD I will vote for it. If only one side tries to resolve an issue I will defer to that argument even if it seems illogical/wrong to me- i.e. if you drop "warming outweighs-timeframe" and have no competing impact calc its GG even though that arg is terrible. 90% of the time I'm being postrounded it is because a debater wanted me to intervene in some way on their behalf either because that's the trend/what some people do or because they personally thought an argument was bad.

I am a good judge for you if/A bad judge for you if not

1. You cut good cards and highlight them to make complete arguments in at least B- 7th grade English, which is approximately my level. Read uniqueness. If your disad is non unique, not putting a uniqueness card in the 1NC is not cute, its a waste of time. If your best answers to an IR K are Ravenhall 09 and Reiter 15 you are not meeting this criteria, ditto answering pessimism with "implicit bias is malleable".
2. You debate evidence quality/qualifications and read evidence from academic sources rather than twitter/forum posts. If you are responding to a zany argument not discussed in academia, blog/forum away. If that is not the case I implore you to ask why these sources are the only ones you can find.
3. You listen to what the other team is saying and give a speech that demonstrates that you did by answering all of their arguments correctly and in the order in which they were presented . Do not read a collection of non responsive blocks in random order. And then in follow up speeches you compare/resolve those arguments rather than repeating yourself.
4. You make smart analytics against arguments with obvious weaknesses. Most 1NC disads and 1AC advantages in current debate are incoherent/missing several pieces. You do not have to respond to an incomplete argument, point out it is incomplete and move on. Once completed you get new answers to any part of it.
5. You rely on knowing what you are talking about more than posturing/grandstanding.
6. You understand your arguments/can explain things. In CX and speeches you should be able to explain words/concepts from your evidence correctly, and be able to apply them. If your link card says "the aff is not disarm" thats not a link, thats an observation
7. You can cover/don't drop things. Grouping things is fine. Making a philosophical argument for why line by line debate is bad, and instead making your argument in the form of big picture conceptual analysis is fine. Randomly saying things in the wrong place, dropping 1/2 of what the other team said and then expecting me to figure out how to apply what you said there is not. I will not make "reject argument not team" for you.

I operate on a "3 strikes" rule: each side gets up to 3 nonsense arguments- a CP that is just a text, a bad disad or advantage, an unexplained perm etc. After that your points and credibility plummet precipitously. If I'm reading your card doc I will stop reading your evidence after 3 cards highlighted into nothing. If you include 3 "rehighlightings" of the other teams evidence that are obviously wrong I will ignore all your evidence/default to the other sides.

If debated by two teams of equal skill/preparation, the following arguments are IMO unwinnable but I vote for them more often than not because the above suggestions are ignored.

-please let us weigh our case or we said the word extinction so Ks don't matter

-the framework is: object of research, you link you lose, debate shapes subjectivity, ethics first without explaining what ethics are/mean

-War good, pollution good, renewables bad- it doesn't matter if these are in right wing heritage impact turn form or academic K form

-the neg needs more than 1cp and 1K for debate to be fair. Arguments like "hard debate is good debate... so make it hard for them" are so bad you should be able to figure it out/not say them

-PICS that do/result in the whole plan are legitimate. The negative can actually win without these, especially on a topic where there are 3 affs.

-counterplans that ban the plan as their only form of competition are legitimate, especially on a topic with only...

Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.

I would like to be on the email chain, my email is jpscoggin at gmail.com

I am the coach of Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I also own and operate Premier Debate along with Bob Overing. I coach Nevin Gera. I prefer a nuanced util debate to anything else.

Arguments

In general, I am not a fan of frivolous theory or non-topical Ks.

High speaker points are awarded for exceptional creativity and margin of victory.

I am fine with speed as long as it is comprehensible.

Procedure

If you are not comfortable disclosing to your opponent at the flip or after pairings are released it is likely in your best interest to strike me. If the tournament has a rule about when that should occur I will defer to that, if not 10 minutes after the pairing is released seems reasonable to me.

Compiling is prep. Prep ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed from your computer.

Updated during Harvard Westlake 2019 because my previous paradigm was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

TLDR because you could be reading a more interesting NYT article or somthng:

· I’m not a former debater.

· I’m not a current debater either, although I am often mistaken for one.

· I’ve been teaching high school English and coaching Speech and Debate at Quarry Lane for the past three years.

· Debate is a safe space. I won’t tolerate anyone that violates this. No exceptions.

· My former student Allen Abbott said it best: Debate is still problematic in many ways. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

· Convince me why I should vote for you and you can win. It’s that simple.

· My email is eshah@quarrylane.org. Start an email chain.

· Extra kudos to those who wear Northwestern merch. Go Wildcats!

Background: I competed on national and local level LD for all of high school during which I achieved moderate success and qualified to the TOC. I judged consistently throughout college and coached for 3 years on the national level. I have only judged a few times in the past two years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Email for chain: calenjsmith@gmail.com

Warning: I haven't judged in a bit but find that I am still ok at keeping up in high speed rounds, though the Stanford 2021 tournament is my first virtual tournament so just check in throughout the round.

Speaking: I used to do and coach national circuit debate so I am fine with speed however my tolerance is diminished so I will probably be better at judging medium paced rounds. I will tell you to slow down. If I tell you to slow down I have probably already missed arguments you are making.

Substance: Ill judge any round (K, Theory, Substance, etc) I am probably more adapt at judging framework debates but I enjoy anything that is well explained and am happy to judge kritiks, theory, policy making etc.

For local tournaments

I think that if you are going to do progressive debate at a tournament where your opponent is more traditional it would be great for you to have some way they could read your case if you are spreading. I don't think it is constructive or education to not assist someone who is unfamiliar with terminology or specific types of cases.

Additionally, while it is probably my preference to judge more progressive arguments I would prefer to watch a good traditional debate than a mediocre progressive debate.

LD

This is the event I’m most familiar with. I competed in highschool and am good with most types of arguments. Honestly just do what you feel most comfortable with.

K arguments

I am comfortable judging k-affs, performance Ks and regular Ks.

I love a good K and am familiar with a lot of the literature. If it is something obscure I need you to explain the K (for my sake and the sake of your opponents.

CPs

go for it

Topicality

I need weighing against counter-interp. no RVIs plz

Theory

For both theory and topicality I need them to be justified. I don't think an excessive theory shell makes sense at all strategically nor do I believe that it is a good use of time.

Policy

Good with whatever, if you have any specific questions lmk. Please include me in the email chain.

Public Forum

I’m a flow judge, am good with speed and I’m really okay with whatever you want to run. Please, please, please use sign-posting and clear extensions. line-by-line is helpful for everybody in the room.

If you are going to claim an opponent is violating the rules, I need this to actually be the case. Particularly due to time constraints I really don’t want to watch a debate about the rules of debate if the argument of abuse is not grounded - it’s honestly a waste of your time, your opponent’s time and my time.

Random bits and pieces

1. I’m not going to be flowing cross-x, I view it as mainly for the benefit of debaters.

2. I don’t have any preference around sitting or standing, just do whatever is comfortable.

3. I have a weak immune system, please do not shake my hand.

email: claire.e.smith@me.com

Updated on 12/1/16

TL;DR- weigh your args, explain your warrants 

Experience:
Debated PF at Logan High School 2012-2016
Qualified and competed at Nationals, 2015 and 2016
some LD experience

Framework

I'll be evaluating the round based off of the winning framework. If there's competition between the two please tell me why I should prefer yours. Generally if your framework is advantageous to your case (and it should be) and you win the framework debate with impacts left on your side, you'll probably win. This is giving me some sort of mechanism in which to weigh your args. For example, how do I compare impacts to the environment to impacts to the economy, etc. In your final focus, weigh the args on both sides and tell me why you win. I really enjoy frameworks based on some sort of philosophy, such as function/duties of a state (Rawls, etc.)

Cross x
-Be respectful (obviously). I won't be flowing cross. If there's something in there that you want me to pay attention to, bring it up in your next speech. I feel like that's pretty standard practice

Speaking
Speed: 7/10
-Many judges are against speed in PF. I'm not one of them. The most important thing though if you're going fast is to be clear and tell me where you are. I'll say "clear" twice and if you still don't make sense I probably won't be listening, and that could be bad for you. As well, slow down a bit in the early morning and late at night (probably don't have to push that too hard)
-Speaking pretty is always a nice thing to do regardless of what event you're in, and will get you good speaks. If it's between speaking and quality of arguments, I'll vote on args. However, speaking ability and argument quality are often correlated
-applies to ld too, read tags slowly

Evidence
-I'll call for evidence I believe to be important to the round, or if I'm confused as to how two pieces of ev weigh against each other. If you tell me to call for a card in round, I'll do it.

Speaker Points
-Said before, speaking pretty and good args/logic/implementation of said args will get you good speaks. It takes a very good round to get a 30. Generally, good debaters will receive a 28

Plans, topicality, theory, k's
So my main style in high school was dressing up K's for PF (blasphemy, I know). Debate should be what you want it to be. I'm not a PF purist, if you want to throw imperialism or biopower at me, that's totally fine. I haven't heard all the really abstract k's, be able to explain them well. be very clear on your alternatives. It's hard to have a really good 20 second shell. I'm more likely to vote for well-developed args
-tell me exactly how you want the round broken down, i.e. what to evaluate first

Other things
-Dress however you want
-Be respectful of lower level debaters, make the round a learning experience

Likes
-humor/pop culture references (puns especially)- others are Star Wars, popular songs, science jokes
-signposting
-weighing (super important)
-strong FW
-warrants
-prerequisite args
-sass

Dislikes (might lose the round)
-racism
-sexism
-ad hominem attacks

If you're confused about my RFD feel free to come and ask me questions after the round. If you have any questions about my paradigm, you may email me before round

I love debate, and I'll do my best to help you to love it as well!

Contact- ethansmith1069@gmail.com

I have been involved with speech and debate, both on a national and local circuit, for 5 years.  Prefer traditional LD, but not opposed to well made progressive arguments. No spewing, but speaking quickly is fine.  Strict on the flow. Be clear with claim-warrant links, and make sure you provide impacts.  It is imperative that you offer me concise voting issues (i.e. "I win because...") in your last speech. 

I understand complex argumentation, and look for clarity in argument and reasoning with well supported research. Any progressive argumentation should be outlined clearly and analyzed in depth.  I request that competitors do not speak excessively quickly (spreading).  

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

I’m your typical South Florida judge. That means:

-Weigh for me. If you don’t then I promise you won’t like my decision

-Everything in FF must be in summary. Yes, this includes terminal defense. 

-I like framework. 

-I believe in truth over tech. I’m probably going to vote off of the argument I think is more convincing and true.

-Don’t be an asshole. That doesn’t mean I don’t like some humor. Just don’t be mean. If you say anything sexist/racist/ablest, I’m probably going to tank your speaks and if it’s bad enough, I’ll drop you. 

I view my role in the round, is as a critic of the debate. Therefore, I rely upon the four competitor's to tell me how I am to evaluate the round, what's important in the round and where I am to look, to evaluate the round. I will fiercely defend my role as a critic, as I will not connect the dots, or complete incomplete arguments to the defense of teams.

these rounds are safe spaces

Past Experience: I was a four year policy debater in high school and was an assistant coach for several years after high school but have not seen a debate round for several years. My speed and flowing capacity are not as fast as they used to be so taglines need to be clear and analysis can be fast but needs to be well understood.

Overall I like impact calculus. The Aff needs to prove that if I vote aff their plan will affect the world in a positive way and the neg needs to prove the opposite.

Feel free to ask specific questions before round.

Experience:

Speech and Debate Coach, 8 years

Teacher: History, Language Arts, Civics, and Constitution

Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.

Style:

Cases based solely on theory are often very flimsy but are not altogether invalid. If an opponent is running theory alone, that does not promise a win. You should adequately address their arguments as well as supporting your own topicality.

Spreading anywhere outside of policy debate seems inappropriate most of the time. In policy rounds it should be tempered. If it is in your case but not in your speech, you might not be able to use it and it may be difficult for your opponent to use it against you, but they won't have to.

Novel arguments that are well tied to topicality are always enjoyed, but don't promise a win.

Flow:

Most of my flow is primary contentions and how well they are supported vs attacked. Not significant detail but I can follow cards just fine. Contradictory cards from opponents are just as valid unless you can prove otherwise.

Presentation skill:

Unless something stands out as amazing: Logos>Ethos>Pathos>eye contact

Debate events aren't memorized speeches. If you want me to look up and make eye contact so you can guess what I am thinking, you will get less notes in the process and neither of us will enjoy the round nor the results.

Speech events of any kind maintain the opposite expectation. They should be memorized and make connections. Interps don't require eye contact but you get to decide the value of the 4th wall.

Flagrant violations will always negate your efforts.

Ad Hominem attacks against an opponent will be disciplined in your scores. If they are minimal, you might be warned. If they are excessive or major, they will be addressed through your coach, the tournament director, and possibly your admin or the NSDA.

Calling your opponent stupid in round or after the round in ear shot of the judge is a great way to forfeit a well won round.

I respect your coach and the tournament director but I am not afraid to debate with them either.

Experience: I have done two years of highschool policy debate, a year of Public forum, and a year of Lincoln-Douglas. In College I did BP and now compete in Policy for the University of Wyoming. Having done everything at some point, I have a good idea of what each debate is supposed to look like.

In General: I have a holistic approach to judging debates, I want to see not only solid argumentation, but also an understanding of the nuance of each debate event. While a line-by line is important, you have a better chance with a big picture overview and if you are able to identify the most important aspects of each round.

Paradigm: For LD- I consider myself a "Game Theorist" judge, In the end debate is about developing critical thinking skills and learning how to play the game. I want so see solid argumentation, and to be told explicitly what the role of the ballot is. Prove to me that your position best meets the defined framework. Have viable value structures and criterion. I will also judge based on who has utilized Ethos and Logos. An emotional appeal wont get you very far.