• • • • • • • •

I am a high school English teacher: I teach AP English Language and Composition. Debate functions as an exceptional foundation for multiple, lifelong communicative capacities/realms. I value organization, solid understanding of one’s case, appropriate citation of relevant sources, and concise refutation of opposition. Regarding delivery, any speed is acceptable.

With an appreciation for the effort required in case preparation, I encourage debaters to deliver their cases with the same amount of gusto with which they prepared their cases. I acknowledge debate's intrinsic educational value; accordingly, I simultaneously judge and cheer as competitors engage in this fruitful, beneficial educational exercise.

A tabula rasa judge cloud is a lovely place to dream; however, a judge with a completely clean slate --void of previous experience and knowledge-- lacks benefit for all involved. Thus, I will do my best to safely tuck away any personal bias(es) as my function is to judge your debate skills, abilities, and effectiveness.

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.

I am an Assistant coach for Alta High School. My Mother is a debate teacher so I grew up with it in my life always and so understand it very well and love it a lot.

First, debaters should know that I debated in high school and understand rules and purposes for each debate and use these for my main source of determining the outcome of a debate. If you are debating LD then I look for a case that sways me morally, for Policy I look for cases that focuses on creating solutions through concrete plans etc. I am also a 'news junky' and try to stay up to date on many current events, with this I am familiar with most topics brought up in debate. That being said I remain very impartial coming into a debate round and look for you to sway me to your case.

Specifics in judging:

Speaker points: To obtain high speaker points its not just about speaking clearly and persuasively. I am all about confidence both in yourself and your case. I stand by the traditional style of debate where you are standing when presenting. A lot is said in body language when speaking and I like to analyze this in the debate as a way to see how confident you are in what you are presenting to me. Tips to help you with this is to know not only your case but the topic inside-out. This allows you to focus on presentation instead of reading. Do not run anything that you do not understand.

Cross-X: I will also draw a lot of speaker points from the cross examination.  I judge Respect and Professionality throughout the entire round but this is the perfect ground to really see the depth of that when there is debater interaction. Make sure that questions are pertinent to either building your own case or clarification. Those who dont use all of the Cross-X time I have a problem with that. 

K's: I find Kritiks fasinating as long as you keep it topical and like I said above know how to run it. Explain yourself well I am not a philosophy major but it you slow down and make it make sense I'll keep up with you.

Theory: I am a very traditional judge and want you to debate the topic. If you keep a theory topical and explain yourself go for it! If you come to a round to debate about debate not the topic it will hurt your score.

 Speed: I can handle some speed but it has to be clear enough to where I can understand you. I will call out clear or slow down once maybe twice if I still can't understand you i put my pen down and stop judging. Just remember I can't judge on what I can't understand.

Final Speech: In your final speech I want specific voters on the main arguments. Debaters who can take an entire round and sum it up into a few surviving points on why their case stand out have my favor. Put the weight to it. I as a judge will not with the issue for you and having to do so will nock on your score. 

Pet Peeves: Extensions. Do not extend your case if you have not sufficiently rebutted your opponent's arguments against your case I don't want to hear the word extend at all. Blatant rudeness will knock speaker point's like none other for me. This is supposed to be friendly and fun stuff. Topicality if your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I will in your judging sheet. Debate the topic at hand not tangents.

Other FAQs: i don't care if you use computer or paper just make sure your opponent has access to your case. You can use your phone to time or whatever I will just make sure an internet is disconnected.

All in all be confident, be clear, and have fun!

Lincoln Douglas

I did LD my last two years of high school, and had a LOT of fun with it!

I am personally a fan of traditional LD, but that doesn't mean I'm not okay with a progressive case. Please don't expect me to understand every kritik, explain it to me. I want to understand your case as well as you do, so make sure you help me understand.

I am okay with spreading, just make sure to slow down on Contentions and Contention Points so I can flow with you. Possibly even slow down on important pieces of evidence if you think it will be important later.

I think that Value and Value Criterion is very important, and you need to make sure all your contentions connect back, but don't overdo the criterion debate. If you and your opponent have similar criterions, move on to why your case fits it better.

I think the last speech is the most important. This is where you tell your judge exactly why you won the round instead of your opponent. Don't waste that time. I don't flow cross-x so if you think something is important, bring it up in your speech.

I have done LD before, but do it as you want to do it! I have my preferences, but it's only to help me understand. If you can do it in a different way, that's not gonna be a problem. I'm not going to make you lose the round if you don't follow my entire paradigm. I'm going to make the decision on how you debate in round, and if you prove to me that you are the better debater, specifically that you have the better case.

This is one of my favorite resolutions, I studied this a lot hoping it would be one of my resolutions, and I'm excited to see what you guys come up with! Have fun!

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).  

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.

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.