"DISCLAIMERS:

1: This is copied and pasted from Micheal Antonucci's paradigm but is still 95% accurate for how I will judge debates

2: Judging philosophies lie. This document is probably inaccurate in some parts, because judges’ self-perception can never perfectly correspond with their actual behavior.

3: This document outlines some things I think about debate, but it isn’t a rulebook (except for the part conveniently labeled RULEBOOK.)

4: For the most part, debaters should determine the curriculum.

A. WHY I LIKE DEBATE:

I value this activity as a means to develop wide and interdisciplinary student expertise about public policy through communicative interaction.*

Most of my judging preferences can be derived by parsing this statement.

--“Student expertise” –

I care about which team actually knows their business better. I want to vote for the smartest people in the room, although I often don’t.

Debate produces undergraduates who can meaningfully interact with policy analysts, critical race theorists, academics, dedicated community activists, lawyers, etc. about their specialized fields. I’m proud of my participation in that enterprise, and that pride determines my commitment to your activity.

There’s an implied converse. I only care about your coaches’ expertise insofar as you’ve successfully internalized it. I care about your cards, but I view them as a means to an end. I care about your work ethic, but evidence quality isn’t automatically the best barometer of that ethic. If one team displays superior command of their materials and synthesizes that command with a deeper and more general expertise, I’m loath to vote against them because their cards aren’t quite as strongly conclusive.

Of course, cards still matter. If you’re going for politics and your uniqueness cards are comparatively worse, I’m not going to vote for you because you said some smart historical stuff about the Carter administration.

If, however, you seem incapable of or uninterested in explaining your arguments in the cross-examination, or if you rely entirely upon card lists and tag recycling in last rebuttals, I might not be your guy. Cards support arguments, but they don’t make arguments.

People make arguments to other people.

--“Wide and interdisciplinary” -

Debate can’t rival the depth or intensity of entirely specialized programs. If you want to learn as much as possible about the law, for instance, you should go to law school. Some of you will.

Debate’s better than mock trial, though, because it draws on a wider range of disciplines and creates the conditions for some interactions between them.

This obviously matters most for debates between students with differing bodies of knowledge.

It’s tough to win my ballot in those debates if you’re vehemently on the side of exclusion – in either direction. It’s much more compelling if you couch your arguments in terms of prioritization.

It’s tough to persuade me that philosophy questions should be excluded entirely based on fairness concerns. It’s much easier to persuade me that topicality is a precondition to commensurability. That’s especially true if your vision of the topic still creates some real room for interdisciplinary discussions.

I also find wholesale exclusion of a particular affirmative’s truth claims tough to swallow. If an affirmative ballot endorses a policy that prevents an imminent extinction, I find it hard to dismiss the impact as wholly irrelevant. Your negative criticism needs to meaningfully interact with the affirmative’s truth claims. Presuming no dropped arguments, my decisions in these rounds will tend to revolve around the relative merits of different methodologies far more often than they’ll revolve around arbitrarily a priori claims.

Alternatives aren’t counterplans.

--“about public policy” –

‘Public policy’ is potentially a very expansive term, as is ‘about.’

--“Interaction” –

Clash is good. Clash can be embedded or technical or much more loosely associative, but you need to assemble the puzzle instead of simply throwing pieces at me and expecting me to assemble them in some implied 3AR/3NR. I’m not wedded to a linear flowing model, but I do think it helps to promote clash.

--“Communicative” -

I’ve previously shied away from vocally managing incomprehensibility. I’m going to give signals now, though. I’m raising my bar, so I owe you all some clarity in my expectations.

I find debaters hard to understand when they slur, run all their words together or speak robotically. Intonation guides comprehension. When you read that crucial scripted overview like it’s a card, I’m getting very little down.

If I say “clear,” you’re slurring or mumbling or something. If I say “I don’t understand,” though, I’m telegraphing more gestalt incomprehension. You might want to slow down, but you probably just want to speak more like the “humans” you may have read about.

There’s more to communication than comprehensibility, but you get the basic idea.

You can parse the other phrases in that sentence if you’d like.

B. SOME OTHER STUFF:

1. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO POLITICS.

The negative can win without a politics disad. I don’t feel obligated to assign some risk to a disad if the aff successfully finds a very compelling logical hole. Some weekends, politics disads just aren’t that good. Some weekends, they’re great.

Thus, if your primary point of offense is a solid politics disad with a ton of cards, I’m probably pretty good for you. If your primary point of offense is a politics disad that derives its value from the absence of counterevidence (eg, terribly overunique, long-shot potential agenda item, long temporal gaps between link and internal link), I might not be your guy, because the aff might dramatically reduce risk even without much evidence.

2. OVERHIGHLIGHTING IS DANGEROUS

Over-highlighted evidence can be pretty silly. It’s reached the point of implicit footnoting. I prefer the K teams that just overtly footnote stuff – it achieves the same effect without brutalizing the language. Even better, though, is reading evidence that completes arguments instead of alluding to arguments through disconnected violent noun phrases.

If your card:

- Doesn’t form complete sentences
- Only forms sentences through Phrase Legos
- Otherwise makes me think of “word salad”

I will probably discount it entirely.

That is true even if I’m very familiar with a fuller version of your card.

If your highlighting abbreviates words in new and exciting ways (representations -> reps, nuclear -> nuc), I will mock your “nuc rep…s” in my head, but I’ll let it go.

I might read around highlighting to determine context, but this generally can only hurt you.

3. THEORY BUSINESS

I had too much stuff on this before. I’m pretty agnostic.

I will say that I want you all to determine these debates by making arguments. Brief allusions to argument don’t constitute arguments. Yes, I can decipher Newspeak along the lines of “errneg, affsidebias, firstlastspeechinfiprep.” I don’t think that quite rises to the level of argument, though. I really prefer sentences to phrases. Hyper-efficient theory debate increasingly seems like a cry for intervention.

C. THE RULEBOOK:

Debate has some rules, like speech and decision times. I have some minimal rules too. I’m comfortable with that. They’re procedural efforts to stop abuses, not substantive restrictions on your curriculum.

1. Be honest about what evidence you’ve read and what arguments you’ve made.

You’re obliged to provide your opponents with a complete, accurate and legible record of evidence that you read.

If you misrepresent what you’ve read, you may lose.

Put more simply, I will pull the trigger on cross-reading and clipping.

If you’re going to call someone out, though, it really helps to have a record. I must be certain. Instant replay is good here.

2. Don’t filibuster cross-examination.

Cross-examination is potentially very meaningful. Cross-examination is not very meaningful when one side won’t stop speaking.

The cross-examiner controls the cross-examination. If I interrupt you and say “it’s her/his cross-x” – don’t freak out. Just shush and let them ask you their questions. Maybe it’s a long-winded question or they’re cutting you off. Get over it. You get a cross-x too.

If one side insists on providing genuinely non sequitur responses, I won’t intervene, but I’ll probably look even more dyspeptic than I usually do.

3. Paperless business

a. Your obligations as a paperless team.

You’re still obliged to provide your opponents with a complete, accurate and legible record of evidence that you read. You must have a viewing computer, as your opponents may not have laptops.

If there are several technically feasible viewing options, your opponent can select their preferred viewing option. This is important.

For example, if your opponents would prefer that you transfer the speeches to their computers via flash drives, you must do so. If you are afraid that they will backtrace everything when they do this, don’t use paperless.

If they want to know what cards you actually read, as opposed to the cards you hoped to read, you have to tell them.

b. Don’t read ahead. This isn’t a “protect your hand” situation. We don’t have the tech together to protect our hands just yet (soon, soon). That’s cheating – real, you-lose kind of cheating.

c. Paperless prep

Prep stops when you save the speech. There is “dead time” to transfer the speech to your opponent’s medium of choice.

I’m not going to time “dead time.” If it lasts more than two minutes, though, I will glare and make increasingly snarky comments as you fumble.

d. Giving me cards

If you're swapping speeches via the Internet - I want in on that, in real time. When we're all doing this via personal area networks in the near future, I might start reading the cards as you speak. I'm not quite ready to go there yet, though.

I will, however, read cards *during* the debate if:

i. some card becomes a thing during the cross-ex and I feel sad and excluded
ii. I wonder if you're clipping

After the round, if you can just consolidate everything read into one document and hand it over via flash drive, I'd appreciate it, so I don't have to stay on a jump drive carousel. I hate using your crappy viewing computer. I'm not going to steal your datas, I promise."

I will judge according to WSFA and NSDA rules. I am looking for debaters to persuade me using good communication skills and authoritative evidence. Communicating effectively means confidently stating your case; speaking in comprehensible and well-formed sentences (no debate lingo); talking at a rate you choose so long as you make it understandable; making eye contact with me and, as appropriate, with your competitors; and showing a deep understanding of your position by being able to acknowledge its flaws and explain why they aren’t important in the framework you are urging me to adopt.

I value compliance with the WSFA Rules of Evidence In Debate 4.1, 4.2 (first time a source or evidence is used, debater is to state qualifications of author (name, publication, date of publication, and pages)); see also NSDA Unified High School Manual, Evidence Rules (in all debate events, contestants are expected to deliver, at a minimum, primary author(s)’ last name and year of publication).

Your job is to persuade me with a well-constructed argument, not to beat up your opponent. Presentation is important but I have given wins to lower-point speakers. Comport yourself honorably and courteously to everyone at all times.

I am a former NSDA speech and debate coach. My background includes 23 years of practicing law as a litigator; moot court competition semi-finalist; English teacher; and speech and writing tutor at secondary and university levels.

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

BACKGROUND: From 1988-1992 I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate at a reasonably successful level. I LOVED it and still do personally prefer it to other types of debate. That said, I respect all forms of debate and try to honor the essence of the form when judging any debate. I have been out of the Debate world since 1992 until now, as new coach in 2016-2017. During my two years as coach, I have been judging Policy often. I think I'm really starting to get it. The plus side of me being somewhat new to Policy is I don't come with the usual biases/preferences as a more experienced judge who competed in Policy might. I have taught Literature and Writing for 17 years as of this moment, and I write and edit fiction.

GENERAL PARADIGM: Tabula Rasa. I won't do the thinking for you, for the most part. I like depth of knowledge on the topic. You should be reading up on your topic, not just finding evidence cards. I want plenty of clash. I want solid reasoning and analysis. Explain your arguments.

STYLISTIC PREFERENCES: You don’t have to be nice, but you should always be respectful. I’m not terribly fond of the overuse of debate jargon and I find that it can supplant reason. I always prefer reason in that case. And by that I do mean overuse. One should be able to call things what they are. Label and articulate the labels of the parts of your case. Use those labels in your following speeches. I like a good debate where you take on the resolution and defend that position and am less impressed with trying to side-step or avoid clash.

SPEED: Not personally a fan because I love good rhetorical style and believe that words matter, but I can follow you if you articulate and slow down on the important points. I find I’m less hindered in understanding by speed than I am by poor articulation and enunciation.

KRITIKS: Sure, if well-argued and not frivolous.

KRITIKAL AFFS: Sure, but same as above.

THEORY: Yep. Also same as above.

TOPICALITY: Also same as above.

COUNTERPLANS: And again. I’m open to different kinds of arguments, except solvency arguments in LD (that annoys me unless you argue why it’s appropriate--it’s not a given). It’s not so much the type of argument that matters, it’s HOW YOU CONVINCE ME IT MATTERS. You have to do that work.

SPEAKER POINTS: Yes, I give 30s. Good rhetorical and style and attitude matter.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: I don’t flow CX, so you need to bring it up in your speech if you want me to flow it and I’m not a fan of “flex” CX.

FLASHING/SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Arrive prepared with paper copies or be seamless with your technology. I am annoyed when time is lost because lost because of technology glitches.

UNDERVIEWS/OVERVIEWS/OFF-TIME ROAD MAPS: Sure, but be quick about it.

DISCLOSURES: I will not disclose unless I am instructed by the tournament to. I think mystery about how you’re doing is a good thing.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.