Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2017 — Long Beach, CA/US
Parliamentary Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.
In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.
In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".
Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.
Background: I have spent almost 3 plus years judging policy debate. but you should definitely avoid using too much complicated jargon. That means you should explain your impacts well enough so that I can evaluate them and easily follow your arguments--always signpost. I know that Ks are basically inevitable in the policy community at this point, but keep in mind I probably don't know as much about the high theory literature as you do.
Speaker points: I usually give speaker points based on courtesy, fluency, and confidence. Humour will always work in your favor. At the end of the day, debate is just a game so there is never a reason to get hostile.
Speed: I would probably retain the most information if you don't "spread". I won't vote on it if it's not on my flow, so it would be in your best interest to not go too fast
Weighing arguments: I dont have any specific agruments that I like to vote on--you can consider me a tabula rasa judge. Just make sure you organize all of your arguments, articulate your impact calculus well, and concisely state your most important points. Tell me what I'm voting for in the overviews of your rebuttals.
Remember to have have fun, debate is all about the learning experience!
My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to shut down. Clarity is key!
Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.
That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?
I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!
I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.
Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.
Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)
Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.
I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.
Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.
Above all, have fun.
- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.
- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).
- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.
- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.
- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.
- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.
- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.Congress
Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.
In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.
Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.PF
I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.
- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)
- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")
- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus
Things that are important for me:
- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)
I do not want you to:
- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document
- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction
- be rude/condescending/curt in CX
I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Hi, I'm Julie Guilfoy (she/her), I have been working with the Bishop O'Dowd debate team for the past 4 years as a coach and judge.
Give content warnings before the speeches start please. I'll disclose and do a verbal RFD and feedback if time and tournament rules permit. I welcome fast speaking and evaluate on what is on the flow and evaluate on the strongest case. I appreciate debaters that sign post their case well and go beyond citing warrants; that is, tying their claims and evidence to unified story. Pet peeve of mine is debaters that try to win on overzealous POO's. Be aggressive, not abusive. I welcome debaters running a critical theory based argument as long as they are explained well and don't exclude any debaters from the round. Make sure to engage in the standards, debates and talk about fairness and education.
I believe that debate should help prepare students for the real world. Spreading, incivilty, and blatantly unnecessary topicality are highly discouraged. If I had to describe myself in a particular judging style, I would say policy maker.
Hello, I am a parent of an LD debater. I have three years of experience judging both circuit and traditional styles of debates (more so traditional). I have a few basic preferences:
Speed/Speaks: Although I understand most debate issues, I still need you to go slow. I don't really care if you sound nice or go super slow, but try to avoid spreading. If you talk faster than conversational, that is okay. Do not use a bunch of heavy jargon, because even though I can probably understand how arguments break down and interact, saying uniqueness overwhelms the link without an explanation will lose me. In terms of speaks, I think I am similar to most LD judges on the circuit. This is how I break that down:
28.8-29.0-good (probably break)
29.1-29.3-great (definitely break, maybe bid)
29.4+: will be competitive to win tournament
LARP: This is the debate I am most familiar with. DA's, CP's and all of that is fine with me. Just don't use super complicated jargon, but just explain what things mean. For example, instead of saying perm do both, say perm the CP and plan are not mutually exclusive, so the aff can defend doing both. Stuff like that.
T/Theory: Fine I guess. I'm okay with judging it, but once again, don't use jargon. Just explain T like you would to any parent judge.
Phil: This is fine. I require more explanation than most judges for a lot of phil arguments, but I will probably be willing to vote on them, although I tend to lean towards util and other consequentialist frameworks.
K: Big time no. I don't understand most of them, and I will not vote on them. By that same logic, the aff must be topical and defend a policy action within the resolution. Spec is fine, but just defend government action.
Note: Disclosure is good. Disclose on the wiki. If someone reads disclosure theory and there is a real violation, I will probably be willing to vote on it. That being said, new affs not being disclosed are fine, and I don't really care about Open Source. I will also not be disclosing the decision in the round, so you can probably ask me, but I will say I won't disclose. That being said, debate is a game. Have fun, be entertaining if you can, and be respectful so everyone is included :)
I used to be a parliamentary debater and went to nationals in public forum. I am well versed in all forms of debate and don't have any particular grievances that anyone should worry about except for the fact that I don't like spreading. You can speak fast but if you start to spread then I wont write anything down and you'll subsequently lose the round. Stick to good ol fashioned debate and you'll probably be fine. Please ask me any specific questions you have before the round and I will be happy to answer or clarify anything.
A good debate means both sides have strong, well researched cases with points that are easy to understand and supported with evidence. Debaters are respectful of each other and the spirit of the event.
I judge on framework and flow. The debater that wins will be the one who best defends their case with supported rebuttals and upholds their value through the end of the debate.
UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update
I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.
I want on the email chain please: email@example.com
Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.
POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.
- I know how to flow and will flow.
- This means I require a road map.
- I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
- I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
- I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions. If you want a better view into my beliefs on theory go read my theory section in my LD portion. (scroll down)
- Be strategic and make good life choices.
- Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
- I will vote on case turns.
- I will call for cards if it comes down to it.
I tend to vote more for truth over tech. I have recently found myself being interventionist against cards with problematic authors or cards cut to exclude marginalized groups from the debate space. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.
Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD.
Things to consider:
- I see my self as a truth over tech K judge. High theory, love for dead white male philosophers, and time wasting theory spikes are really not my thing and not what I am interested in having to evaluate. I will. But I'm probably not the judge for you if you think your two line theory spikes are something I should take seriously.
- Your K's should link and I need an alt that is more than 'Drop Aff Vote Neg'. At least care about what your K is talking about instead of making it just a means to my ballot.
- Despite seeing myself as a K judge I was mainly reading DAs and counter plans in college so I am pretty good at evaluating those if that's the type of debater you are i got you.
- I will vote on RVI's if they apply. A well warranted theory argument or T that is part of the main Neg strat that is not dropped does not deserve an RVI nor will I vote on that RVI.
- Education is a voter to me, but that's because as an educator I feel like Debaters should be able to get something out of this activity.
- I will look at your docs during your speech, and I do so for two reasons. One: I want to spell the author's names right. My quality of life when judging has drastically increased since speech docs. Don't take this away from me. Two: I'm checking against you clipping cards.
- I probably need real articulated abuse in round to vote for your theory or RVI or whatever. Your arbitrary "Neg can only run this many of this argument" probably doesn't have the abuse story I am looking for.
- On the note of super complex philosophical arguments, I try really hard to understand what you are talking about and there has only been one round this past season that I felt totally lost in the lit. But if I don't get it I probably will not vote on it.
- K probably comes before T.
- Lay or Traditional LDers make sure you are framing your arguments via your framework. Do the work for me.
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.
I'm good with theory but that doesn't mean I buy yours. And that doesn't mean I live for it. LD theory is always changing and adapting and I don't buy that a lot of it is good or correct or needed. If you want to win your theory spend time on it and put a voter on it. Reading 80 theory spikes in the AC wastes all of our time. But just doing work on theory isn't enough to win it. I do not like frivolous theory. I don't want to promise I will or will not vote for it it really depends on how the rounds go but if you are running what I see as frivolous theory then I probably won't vote for you.
I define frivolous theory to be:
- Theory spikes read in the AC at the bottom that will never be used for anything. Just read another card for your contentions.
- Theory that tries to get debaters to debate under a super restrictive requirement.
- Theory that could easily go away with a "we meet".
My brightline for "we meet" on theory will vary depending on what it is. But most often if I can reasonably agree there is some type of "we meet" and no articulated actual abuse then I will probably buy there is no reason to vote on the theory.
Speaks will be disclosed if they are asked for. Range varies.
I was a successful policy debater in high school and at UC Berkeley. After law school I became a public defender specializing in death penalty trials, and then was appointed to the Superior Court, where I hear advocates every day. In 2014, I founded the New Roads School debate team and coached parli for six years. Recently I have worked with the Claremont Colleges Debate Union.
I prefer the most reasonable argument to the most extreme. As a ‘policy maker’ I weigh impacts and I am ‘Tabula Rasa’ in that I am an open-minded skeptic.
Tabula Rasa assumes a conventional understanding of the status quo which does not require warrants because these neutral assumptions appropriately narrow the scope of discussion. Any claims supporting or refuting a case must be supported by warrants whether on not the judge has knowledge. Each side has the burden of persuasion on claims they assert.
Use of debate theory in argumentation and employment of kritiks is theoretically sound and can be interesting but these devices circumvent the resolution and tend to turn debates into sophistry. They also tend to be poorly warranted. I could vote for a kritik or meta-argument but only if very well warranted. Theory addresses norms, not rules, so I am open-minded, but I also would consider abuse a reverse voting issue. I prefer reasonable case debate with impact calculus.
I don't mind speed but don’t forget to be persuasive, not to mention 'loud and clear.' When your words become inaudible they won’t make it to my flowsheet and the beauty of your argument will be sacrificed to the ugliness of its delivery.
Tag teaming doesn't bother me, but I only flow the speaker and try to ingore the teammate.
On my ballot, dropping is a concession, but not equivalent to proof if the original warrant was insufficient. Also, the weight remains arguable. Regardless of points of order I protect the flow.
Persuasion is an important aspect of debate. Sometimes this seems lost when debaters focus on technical aspects. Merely asserting a valid refutation or rejoinder does not necessarily win an argument on my flowsheet. You must clinch your argument in the rebuttal explaining the significance of your argument and its result in evaluating the resolution. Debate is not just about being right, but about persuading people you are right. Though I vote exclusively on the flow, there is a subjective aspect to what is persuasive, which is true for any judge, even if they say “tech over truth.” For me, what is persuasive would tend to be a reasonable weighing of human impacts.
I’m looking for a debate that is educational, preparing advocates for the real world. Rapid delivery of complex argumentation and the logical gymnastics of theory do have some educational benefits, but so does development of the persuasive character of speech. The best debaters join these skills, using theory only to support their position and not for its own sake. Debate is not a ‘speech event’, because it is judged on the flow of argumentation, but without persuasive speaking, debate becomes an esoteric and inaccessible academic activity. Its greatest value to you is learning to advocate in the real world to make the world a better place. I look forward to hearing your debate and helping guide you toward your own goals as an advocate.
This Paradigm is mostly for Parli Debate I have additional LD stuff at the end, so skip to that if it's LD, if you have questions, just ask
TL;DR: Dont spread your opponents out, Theory and K are accepted, and I love good logical weighing and impact weighing. Above all else, please be respectful to your opponents.
I debated for four years at Crescenta Valley High School mainly in Parli Debate but also competed in Congress, LD, and Policy often. I now do BP at USC and study Industrial and Systems Engineering.
I really like logic based arguments. I tend to way rebuttal a little bit more than other judges because I love it if you can take down your opponent's argument with a creative but clear argument. Overall though, it is parli so I will default to net benefits when judging unless you tell me a different weighting mechanism. So please, tell me why your impacts outweigh. This is crucial. Tell me why your impact is more important than your opponents. And please, terminalize impacts and have a good link chain
I like theory debates, but please don't run theory for the sake of running theory
Make your abuse clear and impact them out, why is it so important that I vote on the theory
It should be specific to the round currently, don't just run some generic bs that you just found online
I usually do not take RVI's unless it is clear that if offers a clear time skew that because you had to argue against the theory and the RVI is well laid out.
I generally did not run many Kritiks in high school, but I am okay to listening to them, just don't go too fast.
However, I generally am less inclined to vote for Ks especially if they: have generic links, spread out your opponent, or it's something that makes absolutely no sense
Counterplans are awesome, run them as much as you like. I prefer unconditional counterplans, but you can run condo plans if you wish. However, if the opponent runs a semblance of decent condo theory against you, then i'll probably default condo bad. However, personally, condo isn't that big of a voting issue
Speed: I prefer slower debates so I'm not bombarded with a bunch of information, but I'm totally fine with spreading unless your opponents can't understand it
Tag-Teaming is allowed, unless the tournament specifically forbids it, but just do not completely control your partner and essentially dictate their speech for them.
POI: I dont flow them specifically, but I will remember it if it was an exceptional question.
Humor and charisma is good
Please dont troll or have personal attacks against your opponent, aka dont be an ass
Value and Fact Rounds
For fact rounds, I default on the criterion of logic which will be mostly based on the coherence of your points, the rigor of your arguments, and the relevance of your examples. Unless of course a team creates another framework.
For Value rounds: I judge based on which value is best upheld. If there are two conflicting values on either team, then I will prefer a team that can show me how they are upholding both values. If neither team does this, then I will vote on which value has been best defended as more pertinent or important. If there is one value, then I will see which side best upholds the value.
Most of the stuff is pretty similar as with Parli, like my preferences on Ks, Spreading, Theory, CPs but here are a few specifics
I love framework but make sure that it is something that I can understand. If you run some super complicated framework I will not give you the benefit of the doubt. In essence, if your framework is filled with philosophical theory, explain it clearly.
For LD especially, slow down during your taglines and your value/vc.
Non traditional Cases:
Honestly, I would prefer debates on the topic at hand, just because it is more enjoyable personally. However, I won't dock you for running anything non-traditional. I don't have a huge knowledge library of complicated philosophical theory so make sure it is something I can understand with your explanation
DAs are fun, just structure them correctly, make sure they actually apply specifically to the aff case.
Pronouns: He/ Him. Will respect whatever your preferred pronouns are.
Role/ Experience: Director of Debate @ Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA. Formerly debated circuit Policy & coached @ Logan, & brief Parli debater @ UC Davis.
Evidence: Put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. However, I try to avoid reading speech docs for substantive issues- you have to make the arguments, interps, weighing clear to me in your verbalized speech. I will try to intervene/ "do work" for the debater as little as possible, so don't expect that I will buy all of the "fire analysis" of your card if you aren't extending or explaining any of it. Prep stops when you send out the doc. Don't burgle. Don't clip cards. Mark your docs if you end early.
Decorum: Be respectful of all in the round. Ad hominem attacks (about a person's immutable identity/ characteristics/ background) are never OK and will cost you speaker points at the very least. If you cross the line, expect the L and a talk with your coach. Attack arguments and their justifications, not the person.
- "Open" to any argument. I would say that I default policymaker but am certainly open to K arguments/ affirmatives. When attempting to change my default paradigm, debaters must overcome my skepticism by clearly explaining the role of the ballot and demonstrating some level of competitive fairness in their framework. I want to know what I am voting for, not simply that the other side was thoroughly confused.
- Speed is fine, but slow down on tags, blippy analytics, interps, and texts. Pause after cites. Introduce acronyms. I'll yell clear if necessary. Avoid other distracting behaviors like loud tapping, pen-dropping, super-double breadths. Non-speaking teams should limit their decibel level and overt facial indignation.
- T, theory, Ks, etc. are fine. But, as with any argument, if you would like for me to vote for these, you need to give me a clear reason. I am not as well-versed in some K Affs or high theory Ks, but am certainly open to evaluating them if you can make them make sense. I am more comfortable adjudicating T, CP, DA/ case debates, but I am open to voting for arguments of all types (Ks, K Affs, etc...). I will vote for non-conventional argument forms (songs, dance & poetry, etc...), but will be very acutely focused on education and fairness implications of these alternative styles. I will give you more leeway on unconventional arguments (on the aff) if they bear some relation to the topic. Topic education is valuable.
- I leave my assessment of the round largely in the hands of the team that presents me with the best explanation of how to frame the major issues in the round, and why that favors their side. If that work is done thoughtfully and clearly, then my decision about which way the round should go becomes much easier. Oh yeah, it typically helps when you win the actual arguments too (warrants, evidence, links, impacts, & all that micro stuff).
- On theory, I usually will only pull the trigger if I can see demonstrable abuse or unfairness. The "potential for abuse argument" alone doesn't usually cut it with me (unless it's cold-conceded). Show me what specific limitations their interp caused and why that's bad for debate. Condo bad may be a good time trade-off for the aff, but probably won't convince me without some demonstrable in-round fairness/ education loss.
- I appreciate strategy, creativity, and maybe a little humor. Speaks typically range from 26-29.5. I am not impressed by shouting, bullying or obstruction- these will cost you points!! Most importantly, have fun! If you have questions, you can ask me before the round.
(Please see my policy paradigm above as this is where I draw most of my experience and perspective from. You can also find my thought on speed/ evidence/ speaks there. The gist is that I default as a policymaker, but this can be upended if you convince me your framework/ ethical system is good or preferable)
Cross: Speaking over or past your opponent goes nowhere fast. If you ask a question, allow them an answer. If you want to move on, kindly ask to move on, don't shout them down.
Plans: I love them since they impart a clearer sense of your advocacy and one concrete comparative world. Still, you will be held to that plan. Shifting advocacies, vagueness on key functions of the plan, inserting extra-topical provisions to deck case neg offense are likely to get you in trouble. Spec args and funding questions need to be reasonable. Aff can, and probably should, defend normal means in these instances, but clarify what that probably looks like.
Whole Res: This style of debate is fine, but it makes affs vulnerable to a large set of topical, but terrible, ideas. It is each debater's job to weigh for me the preponderance of the evidence. So, even if you prove one idea is the res could cause nuke war, I need to weigh that eventuality's probability versus the rest of the aff's probabilities of doing good. This is a daunting task given the limited speech times, so make your examples as clearly defined, relevant, and probable. I am often persuaded by the most salient example.
Theory: I am far more receptive to theory arguments that pertain to choices by the opponent. Attacking structural differences of the aff/ neg in LD as a justification for some unfair strategy choice is not likely to persuade me and often ends up as a wash. Tell me what arguments their interp specifically limits and why that's bad in this round or for debate in general.
Other things: I do not favor whimsical theory arguments that avoid debating the topic or avoid normative questions of public policy in general. So, save your font size theory for another judge.
Plans are cool/ extra-topical planks are not. Evidence is cool, but warranted and empirically supported reasoning is best. DO NOT take 45 seconds between speeches. DO ASK POIs! Please take at least 2 POIs in constructive for the sake of clarity and education.
Years Judging Public Forum: 9
Speed of Delivery: moderately fast, I would say full speed, but since people throw 8 "cards" up in 20 seconds in PF, you're better off at like 70% of full speed.
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Line by line with some framing/ voters if it helps to clarify the round.
Role of the Final Focus: Establish voters, demonstrate offense, and weighing.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: do it, please don't shadow extend everything, I won't do the work for you.
Plans: fine/ unless impossibly narrow
Kritiks: if it links, sure
Flowing/note-taking: Do it, I will.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Arguments matter more. But, as a member of the human species, style and conviction impact the level to which I am persuaded. Still, I prefer a style that oriented to a calm and reasoned discussion of the real facts and issues, so I think they go hand in hand.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Typically, yes, especially in the summary. The rebuttal may not necessarily have to extend defensive elements of the case.
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Opponents case only; though, you won't get back the time later to explain and frame your best responses, so I'd try to cover responses to case too.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not unless something unique prompted the response for the first time in the immediately prior speech/ grand-cross.
If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. Be civil, succinct, and provide plenty of examples (either common knowledge or your evidence).
I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.
Flow judge, 4 years of Parliamentary debate and 2 years of LD