I've been judging for 3 years now and enjoy it a lot. One of my biggest pet peeves is spreading. I am arguably the most anti-spreader judge on the circuit :') I want to learn the topics that are being debated and be able to discern who does a better job of articulating their case. If I can't understand what is being said, it's difficult for me to be able to do that.

I was very involved with debate during high school and did some judging during college, but this was many years ago. I got back into debate 3 years ago and I am now the new coach for a high school team. I am open to all forms of arguments, but have limited ability to follow full spreading and the more complex national circuit type argumentation. In final speeches, tell me why you have won the round.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

Email for evidence chain: bales@bxscience.edu

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

Argument-Specific (I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework, 

My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine. 

I look for the value/value criterion and framework to see if it really applies to your arguments. I am not too strict about evidence, but I am more of a traditional judge and I like to have analysis in the round. It is good to hear a piece of evidence, but I want to know how it applies to your arguments. Although I prefer classic LD debate, as a judge it is my responsibility to treat every round fairly regardless of my preferences but I prefer no spreading during the debates.

I was a varsity LD debater for three years in high school from 2013 to 2016. I debated on the national circuit for Newtown High School (Newtown, CT), so I have competed in various tournaments in the past, including Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Lexington, and Scarsdale. I also attended NSD for one summer, so hopefully that all gives you some insight to the extent of my experience. However, this is my first time judging since being a debater, so please keep that in mind.

Important Points:

1. K’s and Theory – I despise K debates and theory, unless warranted. I really struggle to evaluate theory rounds because I naturally prefer debates on the framework and contentions. That being said, if there really is a theory violation, I will accept the argument and evaluate accordingly.

2. Plans/Counterplans – totally fine.

3. Disads, Topicality, RVIs, Narratives, etc. – I have very little experience with these, so I’d rather you not run them just because I don’t know if I will be the best at guaranteeing a clear/fair ballot. But that being said, if this is how you debate, I will try my best to evaluate the arguments you present—just be extra clear what to vote on where and why.

4. Spreading – I can handle spreading, but please be clear and loud. Make your cards obvious.

5. Speaker Points – I will say clear or slow if I can’t understand you. If I have to say clear more than twice, you will lose speaks. Sign post as you go please. I will give speaker points based on how well you articulate your argument and make clear links/attacks on your opponent’s case. Weigh the arguments against each other and make it excruciatingly obvious to me why you’ve won the round. Tell me what I should vote on!!!!! Be obnoxious with links, weighing, and impacts so it’s easy for me to make a decision.

6. Cards – if I need specifics of a card to help evaluate the round, I will ask to see it.

7. Philosophies – I’m extremely comfortable with utilitarianism and deontology. Contractarianism, virtue ethics, and all that good stuff are perfectly fine too. If it’s something really abstract, that is great! Just make sure everything is articulated clearly so that I can understand your claims, particularly in comparison to your opponent’s framework. Basically, anything is good, but explain it well.

8. Extensions and Turns – EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND and TURN TURN TURN!!!! BUT TELL ME WHY! Don’t just scream “extend” or “turn” and be done; explain why any arguments against yours were flawed or misguided or wrong, and then extend it and repeat the implication of that argument in the round overall.

9. Timing – you are responsible for timing yourselves (rounds and prep). Flex prep is fine with me if it’s okay with both opponents.

10. Manners – be nice. I will dock speaks if you’re rude (especially if it’s to your opponent). Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable intellectual activity where you learn from and engage with your peers. Treat it as such.

11. Have fun :)

I am affiliated with duPont Manual High School as the head speech and debate coach. I used to debate college LD, so I am familiar with the general format of most all debate. I always say that CX>LD>PF>CON...if that's not agreeable with you, then that's unfortunate, but that's just how my hierarchy Debate chain/list works. I respect all debate divisions, so please do not misunderstand

1. I enjoy K Debate, especially if it gives insightful

Anthro K’s are not as convincing to me.

2. Do not use abbreviated jargon yet because I am still learning how to apply jargon to my RFD. For example, use CONDITIONAL instead of CONDO, or Topical(ity) instead of T, or PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTER PLANS BAD instead of PICS… Sorry, but it will make the ultimate difference because I will be able to follow my flow/your narrative.

3. I am a flow judge.

4. I will call clear if I cannot understand you, and I won’t take off of speaker points after the first time.

5. Please stand to MY RIGHT side because I am deaf in my left ear. SO, if you are facing me, please spread or speak standing to the left side of the room. I will always try to sit in the center of the debate.

6. I have had experience judging CX at UPenn, PF at several national tournaments as well as in Chengdu, China, and I used to debate in LD in high school and at IU for a year. I have been coaching at duPont Manual HS in Louisville, KY for 4 years.

7. Theory Debate…I will deal with it, however, it makes me feel inferior or confused or . It just might take me a bit longer to articulate an RFD, so don’t ty and an endearing candidness - it's so adorable and

8. I love progressive LD, and spreading is fine with me.

9. LOUD, CLEAR, and SIGN POST along the way. Also, give me an off time road map before each speech, please. Traditional debate is wonderful too; however, I DO look for SOLVENCY AND COUNTER PLANS are also valued by me.

10. For PF, I value both long term and short impacts, but I need the debaters to weigh the round and tell me what i prefer in the end. Make it very clear to me what your voters are. For LD, I need you to uphold your framework and give me the Roll of the Ballot. Make it very clear, and repeat it for me so I am sure to catch it/them.11. I love topicality; an overview

I can take speed, but please be clear. I encourage progressive debate, so I will not dock speaks for calling clear. Therefore, I will call clear until I can understand you. Please take the time to adapt if I call clear.
I base speaker points on several different factors. This includes clarity of speaking, presentation, projection, and the ability to debate strategically. Impact your arguments and tell me why they matter. Pick the most important arguments and tell me the reasons I should vote for it. Also, signposting is a must.

If you have any questions please contact me at 502-572-4635 or erica.cooper@jefferson.kyschools.us.

I debated for four years in Varsity LD and a few tournaments in policy mostly on the Nebraska circuit and at some smaller bid tournaments in the midwest. I attended two summers of VBI.

It's been around 2 years since I last debated so keep that in mind lol. To be honest I was pretty much an average debater in high school.

Important points:

1. Speed - From 1-10 where 10 is TOC Policy level, I can do 8 if you are very clear. I will yell clear and/or slow in round if you are too fast/unclear. Slow down on tag lines. Pause after finishing a card. Please include me in the email chain!

2. Ks - I really enjoy them and I mostly debated these in HS. I have some familiarity with Deleuze, Afropess, and Baudrillard, but after two years of not debating, I've forgotten a lot. However, be sure to explain your arguments well in your later speeches if you are getting very technical and pomo. If your argument is pre-fiat then warrant it. I prefer these arguments to be topical.

3. Policy Arguments - I am fine with these but I prefer K arguments. Be sure to do impact weighing.

4. Phil/Framework Arguments - I'm fine with these and have lots of experience debating with/against them. Enumerate your justifications. I used to think these arguments were squirrelly but they can be cool/fun if you explain it well.

5. Theory/T - I'm okay at evaluating these but if you are exclusively a theory debater then don't pref me high; I'm more receptive to Theory/T if the in-round abuse is clear and non-frivolous. Slow down when reading the violation. I don't default to RVIs. I default to competing interpretations.

6. Tech - I'm mostly tech over truth, and I will vote on a prioris and the like but my brightline for these is that they have to have a warrant/cannot be a one sentence assertion. Be reasonable.

7. In-round stuff - Don't be oppressive. I will dock speaks heavily. If your opponent makes that as a reason to drop you, I will. Be nice during the entire round.

8. Extensions need to have explanations and cannot be one sentence.

9. Speaks -

< 27 - You were a bad person.

27 - 28 - You were below average in the field.

28 - 29 - You were pretty good, have a chance for outrounds.

29 - 29.5 - You were really good, high chance of making outrounds.

29.6 - 30 - Awesome debating, high chance of late out rounds.

--This is my first major edit to my paradigm in, like, two years, so ask me questions before the round if there's anything here that doesn't make sense or I forgot.--

I debated four years of policy and one year of LD in high school from 2003 to 2008. I've been coaching LD since I graduated and I've been with Lexington for the past 5ish years. I'm also working on a PhD in philosophy (this doesn't mean what you think it means, see below).

General info/Speaker points stuff

--Email chains are cool, include me on them: hcurtis@albany.edu

--Run whatever you want to run as long as it isn't actively offensive. If you want a K debate, have a K debate. If you're looking for a values or stock debate, that's cool too. The space is yours, do what you want with it. There's stuff that I'm probably less good at judging than other people, but I won't drop you for running a specific type of argument unless, again, it's actively offensive.

--I'm 100% team tech over truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That being said (and this applies generally as well), the dumber an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response is. So, while most arguments require actual, thought out responses, if you respond to "must concede after the AC" by just saying "no I don't", that'll count. So, don't drop stuff, but don't waste time on really bad arguments. If an argument is given without a warrant, it doesn't need as developed of a response.

--On that subject, warrants are cool too. I hate vague extensions, they bother me and that'll reflect in your speaker points. If you're extending a card, a theory shell, anything really, give me the warrant behind the card. What does the [evidence/shell/value/whatever] say, why is it right, and what does that have to do with my ballot? Better extensions and better storytelling mean better speaker points. Blippy extensions with no explanation require less to respond to because, as above, blippy extensions are bad arguments.

--I'm not the best at flowing. This matters less in a world of speech docs, but for stuff like detailed underviews (like cramming drop the debater, RVI, reasonability, and random evaluate theory after the 1AR spike into the same subpoint) or longer theory shells, slow down. No, seriously, slow down. I won't get all of the details, and then when you're posting me after the round about how I could have missed underview A, subpoint 3, as extended with random other thing on a totally different flow as defense somewhere else, I'll just say I didn't get it on the flow and we'll both be mad.

--I don't like doing work for debaters. Embedded clash is a nicer way of saying judge intervention. Don't make me do it. Offense weighing and comparison is probably the most important thing for me (and key to good speaker points). Don't just say why your stuff is good, say why your stuff is better/more important to my ballot than their stuff.

--Last thing for speaker points, the most important factor for me is strategy. If you make strategic arguments and there isn't anywhere where I think you should have done something different, then you'll get very high speaker points. Strategy is number one for me, but that gets weighed against not being a jerk in round, being funny, and being a good speaker. If you do everything perfectly but you're not a clear speaker, then you won't get a 30, but you'll still get above a 29.5. I'll say clear or slow if I need to, but if I say it a couple of times, then you should know what'll happen to your speaks. If I say clear, don't do that thing where you're clear for a couple of seconds and then just go back to how you were speaking before. Also, general rule of thumb, be loud. I don't hear stuff very well, so the louder you are the better. Don't scream at me, but you get the point.

T/Theory

--At least 80% of my neg ballots when I debated policy were on T. Love me a good T debate.

--General stuff: I default to competing interpretations, no RVI, drop the debater unless told otherwise. Also, general pet peeve, if you're going to tell me drop the argument and it isn't blatantly clear what argument I'm dropping, then tell me what argument I'd be dropping.

--RVIs need a little bit of work for me. You need to convince me why you get RVIs in the first place (RVIs are much more convincing against multiple shells or 7 off strats) and then actively identify what constitutes an RVI and why.

--1AR theory is fine-ish, but when a round turns into shell versus shell, it usually breaks down into incomprehensible nonsense and then I get sad and then I trash your speaker points. If it gets to this point, what makes me happy is offense comparison. This is usually easier if we're weighing between fairness and education voters, but if it's fairness v. fairness, then be super specific about why your opponent is being worse for fairness than you are. Compare offense, don't just extend yours. Alternatively, go meta and tell me why aff or neg theory comes first. Either way, don't ignore the other side of the flow, because then I have to do weighing for you and nobody likes that.

--I'll vote for disclosure shells, but the dumb argument vs. strength of response weighing from before applies here. If there's straight up nothing on the wiki and they're from a school where you'd expect something to be there, then fine. But if it's a small school non-circuit debater and/or your interp is "must disclose all speech docs, past 2NR strategies, and what they've had for lunch the past five days", then a lesser response is required.

--Generally speaking, if there's an obvious win on substance and a more difficult win on T or theory and you go for T or theory, I consider that a less than strategic move and it'll reflect in your speaker points.

DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff

--I was a policy debater after all, so I'm pretty comfortable with this kind of debate.

--Impact calc is your best friend. Good impact calc means good speaker points and typically is a tiebreaker if I want to avoid intervening. If I have a better understanding of why your impacts matter more than your opponent's, then you're probably going to win.

--This is a general thing, but I'll highlight it here and elsewhere, but extensions should include storytelling for me. Don't just extend the cards from the disad, explain the warrants and tell me how they link together into the story of the disad. Better extensions, better speaker points.

K/Framework

--So remember how I said that me being a philosophy PhD doesn't mean what you think it means? I study bioethics and general normative theory and have had any knowledge/appreciation of continental philosophy beaten out of me over the last 5 years. So, I'm actually not the best at evaluating super dense Ks, high theory, that sort of stuff. That being said, you can totally run it if that's your thing. However, you're going to ahve to take extra time for storytelling. What's going on in the K, what does the aff/res do that is bad, why should I care, and what do you do to make it better/different? So, don't avoid running Ks if that's your A-strat. Do what you do best. Just be good at it and we're fine. If you've grabbed a K from a teammate that you haven't seen before and don't know how to properly extend and explain, it probably won't go well and you should consider doing something else (this applies generally).

--Framework v. framework debates are almost as bad as theory v. theory debates in terms of incomprehensibility. So, do active weighing work. Why does your framework matter more? If your framework precludes, why? If they say their framework precludes, why doesn't it. If both frameworks preclude each other and I have no in-round way to determine whose actually does, we're all going to be upset.

--Role of the ballot/role of the judge is probably the single most important layer of the flow. I mean, you have the power to tell me what my ballot does. Use it to your advantage. If you win that the only thing I should care about is whatever the role of the ballot says I should care about, that's kind of a big deal. Use it to your advantage. On the other side of the flow, you really should spend time here if you're responding to a K.

--Totally fine with performances, but, and this also applies generally, weighing pre versus post fiat offense and why the performance itself matters is pretty important. This is another area where the role of the ballot is your best friend.

--Like I said, I'm usually pretty good about ethics frameworks since that's kind of what I do for a living. That being said, debate phil is 99% of the time waaaaaaayyyyyyyy different from academic phil. This is especially the case for K authors like Foucault, but also for Kant, Mill, Rawls, etc. So, you'll have a little more leeway with explaining evidence for something like a Kant framework, but you still need to do actual extensions and explanations.

Other miscellaneous stuff

--Again, if this is your thing, this is your thing so do it, but I'm generally not a fan of tricks. Most tricks arguments fall into the camp of bad arguments I describe above where a response of "nuh-uh" is sufficient. Again, if this is what you do, then do it, just be super clear about where stuff is located, both when you're reading it and when you're responding to stuff in c/x. Nothing is more infuriating than shifty c/x responses. Saying stuff like "lol I don't know what an a priori is" when it's pretty clear you do is an easy way to get your speaks docked. Don't be that person.

--In that regard, unless you legitimately don't know what the person is asking about, don't say "I don't know what that means". If you've been to camp or the TOC or on the circuit at all, I assume you at least have some understanding of what terms like pre-fiat or spike mean. That's being shifty and wasting c/x time and it's annoying.

--Flex prep is fine. To a lesser extent, so it using c/x time as prep if you want. It isn't a good look, but c/x time is your time to ask questions and use it strategically. Asking questions is generally better than not. Also, both c/x and flex prep are binding.

That's all I can think of for now, I'll try to be better about updating this more regularly. Again, if something here isn't clear or if you want to know more, find me at the tournament and ask or ask me before the round starts.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Hi, I’m Doron. I coach Ld for Mountain View/Los Altos (CA). I’m also a ph.d student in English at the University of Wisconsin. I have previously coached at Millburn High School (NJ) and UW (WI).

2023-24 is my 15th debate season (including competing for four years in high school). Generally speaking, I consider myself more of a traditional debate coach/judge these days. I don’t dislike circuit debate (most of my dissertation concerns the kinds of things debaters would refer to as “k lit”), but I do dislike judging it.

I find that I’m generally more likely to vote for debaters who:

- Demonstrate strong topic knowledge
- Make sound strategic decisions (knowing which arguments to go for and which to drop because they don’t matter/affect the ballot)
- Make proper extensions (i.e. don’t just tell me to extend something, also tell me why the extension matters)
- Demonstrate a sense of style/personality during the round. I.e. Make the round (or yourself) stand out.
- signpost exceptionally clearly during your rebuttal speeches—I think this is a hugely underrated skill in debate.
- Very explicitly weigh impacts back to the framework.
- Actually seem like they're having fun.

My paradigm has gone through several evolutions over time, but I find that going through all the technicalities is much more important for circuit debate than traditional debate, so I'll keep the document short. I’m also happy to answer any questions you might before the round starts.

I have been judging for 4 years mostly focused on LD. I've come to really enjoy it and look forward to hearing from you.

What I am looking for:

Content is king for me: Having a good, sound argument where you clearly understand the facts/cards/reasoning of your aff and/or neg and can clearly explain them to those who do not is what I am looking for.

I am also looking for an organized thought process and adherence to the LD framework. Your actions should almost always be taking it back to your value and core contentions.

I understand Spreading is an approved technique, but if you are going so fast I can't understand your case, you can't win the argument, no matter how good it is. Speed is acceptable, as long as I can understand what you are saying. I am a professional communicator for a major healthcare company, and if I counseled my executive leader to speak super fast I would not have a job (and neither would the executive).

If you are going so fast I can't understand, I will give one warning. Again, the content of your argument and an organized framework will go much farther with me than getting lots of information/facts and figures on the table.

And know this: I am NOT a fan of Kritik. Do at your own risk.

It is important that everyone learn from this experience, so my comments will be broken into what you did well and opportunities for improvement.

Lastly, I appreciate all the hard work you put into this and am constantly impressed by students who have the courage to do this and their amazing skills. Thank you!

Competitors should debate the merits of the resolution. Speeches should be spoken at a speed that is easily understood by all. Universal language is preferred.

Likes: signposting; solid evidence/links and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of evidence; well constructed arguments that are on point and do justice to the important topics being debated; and good speaking skills.

Philosophy: I'm familiar with a few common LD frameworks but beyond that, it's to your advantage to err on the side of explanation.

Speed: I can't flow circuit-level speed and pushing that limit won't make me more likely to vote for you. I can flow fast conversational pace. I will let you know if I can't flow you by saying slow or clear, but by then it means I've already missed something.

Theory: should be avoided.

K's: I am unlikely to be persuaded by role of the ballot arguments. I will listen to post-fiat critical philosophy provided that explanation is clear.

Debate judging experience: parent of a VLD debater from Princeton High School and have judged at several tournaments.

For the email chain and any contact you need - edfitzi04@gmail.com

I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

OVERVIEW:

I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.

I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.

Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.

Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.

Last updated 1/10/2020

PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):

Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.

Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:

Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.

SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:

I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.

HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:

Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.

I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.

Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.

Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:

A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.

Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.

ARGUMENT SPECIFIC:

The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.

FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):

I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.

Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.

However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.

For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.

KRITIKS:

This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.

Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.

Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.

Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.

Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.

PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:

These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.

When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.

I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.

THEORY / T:

Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.

One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.

I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.

COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:

I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.

PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.

Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.

I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.

I debated LD for 4 years at Clements High School (2011-15), qualifying to TOC my junior and senior year.

As a debater, I mainly read Policy styled arguments and T/theory. I’m not deeply familiar with any particular body of literature, but I will likely have enough exposure to understand your argument and it’s implication for the round with clear explanations. So I’ll vote on pretty much anything that doesn’t make me doubt the activity’s value (e.g. racism good).

As a notice, I am no longer actively involved in debate, so be considerate. The last time I judged was at the Penn LBC tournament and the Penn LD Round robin. Speed should not be a problem - I am not afraid to call clear and slow - but I might not catch onto or be receptive to any new strategy antics that debaters love to pull.

I give speaker points based on a) general clarity and ethos, b) how well you understand and use your arguments (smart strategy)

Affiliations: Clements High School, Northland Christian School

Mr. Gigot has been coaching and judging LD debate for six years. He is a lawyer by training and profession, and he expects debaters to address the merits of the resolution based on logic and evidence. Debaters who rely on speed-reading or gimmicks almost always lose in front of Mr. Gigot.

I debated for Hunter College in high school. I often broke at national tournaments and went to VBI twice. Today I'm a parttime student at Penn and a journalist. This will be my first time judging VLD in quite a long time. You can try spreading but I will yell clear if I don't understand you (and it may very well be that I don't - I haven't listened to spreading in three years). I can't vote on an argument I didn't understand. I prefer substance debates to theory debates. I'm fine with Ks as long as you explain why they mean I should vote for you. If you have spikes please make sure that they're clear in your 1A/1N - that said, you should probably ask your opponent about spikes in Cross-ex and definitely respond to them in your speech. I don't want to have to call up your materials after the round unless there's a clear disagreement on the meaning of the text. the argument should be clear in the round. Please weigh and tell me the story of the ballot in your final speech.

Update* It seems like almost all of my rounds have now been "traditionalist" against the more-spreading-K-theory-intense debate type people. It's very difficult to judge these types of rounds when the debaters have two vastly different ideas of what LD debate should look like, and it's uncomfortable to depend on the formalized way of resolving those conflicts, theory, when one of the debaters doesn't "do theory." If this seems to be the case, I ask that you both try to debate in good faith - and take your opponents' arguments seriously and legitimately, regardless of whether they're in a format that you're not familiar with (goes for both debaters). I will analyze the arguments that are made on the flow at the end of the round. If you don't understand the function or implication of your opponent's args, clarify clarify clarify. Remember your goal is to tell me the story of the ballot at the end of the round, and that LD is primarily about weighing various frameworks for understanding normative statements.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

I'm currently a college student, but I did LD debate all four years of high school. (I've also done OO, Impromptu).

General Guidelines:

1. Be civil. If you are rude to your opponent, I will significantly dock your speaks. If it gets out of hand, you'll lose the round.

2. Do not cut off your opponent in CX. Again, docked speaks if you do.

3. Follow the flow. If you drop an argument, don't bring it up later.

4. Use a timer. I will give hand-signals if needed, but I really prefer to focus on the argumentation. And on this note, don't go overtime. I won't listen to anything said 2-3 seconds after your timer goes off.

Tips:

1. I judge LD debate. If you forget that this is value debate, I will have much less reason to vote for you. Always bring your framework back. On this note, if you and your opponent have similar frameworks, that is not an excuse to forget about V/VC argumentation.

2. I don't love spreading. I am a traditionalist when it comes to debate -- have always been and always will be. If you choose to spread, that is OK, but I need to be able to understand what you're saying. If I have to consistently yell "clear", I will dock speaks, and frankly, I probably didn't hear your argumentation at that point.

3. Evidence is good! But if you cannot convince me with statistics alone. There needs to be logical argumentation.

4. IMPACT!!! Tell me WHY an argument is important. I don't care whether all 200 countries of the world have followed some plan, blah blah blah, explain to me why that matters. Impact = probability x magnitude.

5. Theory is fine, but please don't make me sit through 30 minutes of theory debate, unless it's really relevant. Not all debaters had thousands of dollars to spend at debate camp or for coaches, so please be aware of this especially if your opponent clearly doesn't follow your argumentation theory-wise.

Anything else?

If there is anything else you want to know from me, feel free to ask me before the round. I love debate, and it was perhaps the most important activity I did for 4 years of my life. Good luck!!

Experience

Debated 4 years in HS from 2007-2011 (LD [3 years] PF [1 years]) on the circuit.

Preferences

Speaking

I judge several tournaments a year, but am largely removed from the event otherwise. This makes egregious spreading inadvisable. I will say clear once if you are unintelligible, however after that point you are on your own and my retention of your arguments may suffer. Please enunciate card names. I can't stress this enough.

Philosophy / Arguments

Ultimately, i'm going to judge you on the flow. The years have made me slightly more traditional, but i'm still very open to non-traditional cases. Plans, CP's, disads, are all kosher with me. Careful with the more critical material, and if you do run it make sure it is explained well. I tend to have a higher bar of expectations for those who run kritiks, so bear that in mind. I believe theory is necessary to counter abuse, however, if you run it make sure it's well explained and necessary. I'm largely unsympathetic to debaters who employ it offensively.

Technique

Most often, the more technically proficient debater will win my ballot. Make sure your extensions are clear (author names, internal warrants). Give me a standard, link and impact to that standard, and give me weighing analysis for competing offense.

Misc. Preferences

I'm not going to decide the round on whether you sit or stand, or what you're wearing. Do what makes you most comfortable and will produce the best round. Flex prep is more than okay with me. It is expected that you will time yourself. I will keep time for prep, and that's it.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

I am a parent/volunteer. This is my second year to judge this tournament and my third judging experience. I have no personal experience debating outside the high school classroom. I am an attorney and have experience in jury and bench trials, appellate brief writing, appellate oral arguments, and preparing cases to present before administrative law judges. I currently manage labor campaigns (management side), which requires persuasion of voters.

I’m becoming more familiar with arguments that are run in LD debate. My best advice, however, is that you should debate the way you like to debate. My professional training and background lends me to favor logic and clarity. A few well developed, organized, well-articulated arguments with good flow and connectivity are often more appealing to me than a trifecta wheel (as many arguments/bets as one can cram in during the allocated period). Quality over quantity. I don’t favor the mudslinger approach of arguments, where one throws a lot of mud and hopes something will stick on the wall, although a little witty mudslinging in clash can be fun, interesting, and is encouraged. Clash should be exciting and productive - talk about your opponent’s argument and pin them down – I am not interested in a repeat of your main points (if you articulated clearly, I got them the first time). As with most attorneys, clash is not personal to me and should not be to debaters; in fact, it makes you tougher in the real world.

Mostly, I favor common sense arguments that make or could make sense (or do not make sense) in the real world and show a thorough understanding of the debated topic. As much as possible, show me what the world looks like on each side with real world scenarios, examples, and impacts. I will go for pure theoretical though if you convince me it is better. I weight the entire round of all components. Simply, convince me and you are the winner (absent violated rules or huge errors). I am rational and put all personal opinions aside, judging you on your case’s merits and your presentation of your case. Big picture examination with logical examples used to illustrate are effective with me.

I prefer persuasive pretense with passion and conviction that, in my opinion, is best delivered at a moderate pace and speed. Rapid-speed and/or brute-force delivery is unpleasant for me to listen to and I find it a monotonous and unpersuasive speaking style. I have no idea how this helps someone in the real world unless you are reading a disclaimer on a radio commercial. If you have to offer me your presentation in writing or electronically for me to follow along, because I might not keep up with your rapid-fire speed, we have a problem. If I do not understand you, I cannot judge your arguments. I like a speaker who talks “with” me and not “at” me.

I appreciate a speaker qualifying authors they are citing to support their arguments. Smart, sophisticated arguments about the quality of competing pieces of evidence will catch my attention and will be all the more powerful if you verbalize these qualifications when the evidence was initially presented. Evidence that is unqualified or proven unreliable may be discarded by me in considering the merits of your argument. Once qualified, extend ideas on cards, not by the author’s name. For instance, “Extend the card where I say ____” so I recognize the source by subject (easier for me than remembering a name).

Line by line refutation is desired; tell me where you’re attacking before you spring please.

I am not familiar with Kritiks at all. If you want to run one, I suggest avoiding all the jargon and explaining very clearly how the Kritiks affects the round. I have no bias against this, but I’m possibly going to mishandle it.

If you want brief oral critique before you leave the room, ask me. I also have no problem with disclosing; I own my decisions well (it is optional in this tournament).

I am a Penn student who did Varsity LD in high school and PF in middle school! In terms of preferences, present your arguments clearly and in order in which they were presented. Do not bullshit evidence, it is very clear when you do so so don't shoot yourself in the foot for credibility throughout the round!

I am ok with any speed so long as you are clear. If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly. I am also ok with theory but feel like that should primarily be better for the style of LD debate.

Preference on traditional style debate where there is a flow to logic and concise contentions.

Not able to keep up with speed reading, please keep speed a reasonable tempo.

I will be focusing on the realism of the debaters arguments made and the coherence of the story being told by the debaters. there should be a quality to the argument where it flows well and have the most real world impact to solving the issue at hand. If the argument seems far fetched and anecdotal, it will not be viewed as valid.

I have judged several regional and national circuit tournaments, but I have never been a debater myself. I have a strong preference for the traditional style of debate because it's what I can readily understand and flow. If you spread or use progressive debating approaches like Kritiks or plans/counterplans, I may not appreciate many of the technical nuances and that certainly will not be to your advantage.

I look for both content and style - good eye contact, posture, enunciation, delivery are also important factors for me, in addition to your framework and arguments.

Lastly, keep it courteous - if I see you being rude or disrespectful to your opponent, that won't win you any points in my book. Have fun and good luck!

I am relatively new to judging LD. I do not like spreading and favor a well constructed argument I can follow.

LD is supposed to be debate before a lay audience and presume I am a lay person. Construct a cohesive presentation and deliver at a speed and choice of words a lay person will comprehend. My eyes and ears tend to glaze when I hear too much debate jargon. Contextualize and rank your contentions clearly articulating the value. Your contentions should be credible and pass a smell test and I tend to discount projections that have a quantum probability. I have a physics/math background and tend to look at questions for a lens of 'Is this a useful question to ask'. Treat your opponents with respect.

I debated on the state and national level for four years (2010-2014) for Southlake Carroll high school in Texas, and I am currently a senior at the University of Pennsylvania.

If you don't want to read everything below, here's a nice little TL;DR:

-Run whatever you like.
-Have good extensions.
-Be a decent human being.
-Speed's fine. I'll call clear.
-Yes, you can sit.
-Performance args, irony, and stuff are fine, just justify them.
-K's are cool, just know what you're talking about and explain it well.
-Theory's fine, just don't be muddled
-Policy concepts are A-okay, but I'm not very experienced in them.
-Basically, debate however you want.
-Have fun!

Here's the more detailed explanations of the above:

Now, I'll start off on saying that this is your activity, so participate in it however you want, so long as you're not blatantly being a jerk to your opponent. Have fun, run strats you're comfortable with, and just enjoy the activity.

General: Unless given a reason not to, I assume your args have to be topical and whatnot. Be polite in round, don't use offensive rhetoric or anything like that, or it'll make me and your opponent very sad. I do have an above-average threshold for extensions, if you're not extending the full argument then I don't have an argument to evaluate. That said, I'll be less strict on "thoroughness" for things like the 1AR. I'll ignore new arguments unless you give me a reason not to.

Defaults: I don't have a "default" in the sense of assuming truth testing or offense-defense or anything like that. What I do want to hear are justifications as to why whatever way you are evaluating the round is correct, and comparison between your and your opponent's framing of the round. That can take whatever viewpoint you want, from a theory debate to criterion battle to "the better debater is defined as he or she who can drop the sickest beat". If neither debater tells me how to evaluate the round, then I dock both debaters' speaks and vote for whoever is doing a better job of interacting arguments and presenting a rational, cohesive position.

Presentation: Dress how you like, sit or stand, etc. Just be polite. Speed's fine, but I'm a horrible flower so I wouldn't recommend going max speed if you're particularly fast. Also, if you're spreading then you have to signpost more explicitly, speak clearly, and provide fully warranted arguments. If you use speed as an excuse to blipstorm a thousand warrantless arguments, I won't be very happy. I'll call clear, but if I'm doing it like 3+ times a speech then I'll be displeased and dock your speaks accordingly.

Role of the Ballot: If you don't tell me anything, I assume the ballot goes to whoever presents better rational argumentation for their side. If you think it should function in a different way, argue for it. If you want it to be a battle of policy options, a theory debate, or a Super Smash Bros Battle, tell me why.

Specific positions

K's/Critical Positions: I ran K's a lot during my career, I find them interesting and useful to framing a lot of arguments, and arguably they're my favorite kind of position. So, if you like critical arguments, feel free to run them. This does not mean you win for running a K, it means that if you do so in a way that does not make sense, or misuse arguments you stole from policy backfiles hoping that your opponent and judge will not notice/be confused and you will win, you are wrong. Critique what you want. If you want to tell me that your opponent's sentence structure creates an oppressive aesthetic, or that the action of the AC causes us to forget the nature of death experiences I am fine with that. So discourse, ethics, impact, etc. K's are fine, just justify why I should view the round like that. I am open, as I said, to any manner of argumentation and am personally a fan of more "progressive" and "critical" positions. There are three main things you should draw from this. First, I will not throw out arguments because "we do not even know what this means." You need to make actual arguments against them. Secondly, if you are making unwarranted critical arguments, miscutting an author, or straight up lying about an argument, you will probably not get away with it. Finally, if you cannot explain the position succinctly in CX, your opponent can not answer it, and I will probably penalize you severely. You need to be able to explain your arguments properly, without repeating the same jargon-bloated phrases over and over. Additionally, if I don't understand your argument in the first speech, I'll be hard-pressed to vote on it later. If you want to do something that criticizes your opponent's precept in a certain way (The most common example is "X Justifies The Holocaust"), then relate it properly to the ballot and your opponent's position properly, otherwise it's every bit as offensive as the practice you're trying to condemn. If you're trying to make links like that when there aren't any though, don't expect a happy ending.

Theory: I come to the table in theory debates with a workable but not all encompassing grasp on the vocabulary of theory. If my theory flow gets really muddled, I will probably make a bad decision. So, you should try to make sure that my theory flow does not get muddled by explaining the implications of your arguments. Be explicit. Point out which arguments your spike is taking out, and explain why. When doing weighing, explain why you are outweighing your opponent in explicitly comparative terms. In general, don't just speed through a thousand tiny theory analytics, all the while making complex strategic moves, and expect me to have a full understanding of the way your arguments function. I have a mid-high threshold for warrants, which spikes if you're running potential abuse. Responses to theory can not be disregarded because you think you are winning the abuse story, do not be the person who loses because they ignore simplistic responses to developed voters because you think you do not have to prove fairness is important, it can be simply explained, do so. I'm fine with theory bad args, "metatheory," etc, just make your args explicit and don't let my flow get muddled. I'm fine with paragraph theory and things like that, but that said, I'm not a huge fan of an AC that's 95% paragraph theory and 5% actual AC. I won't downvote you if that's your thing, if you win the round then you win the round, but you shouldn't expect super-high speaks from me. Also, I am one of the few judges who will accept post fiat applications to theory, such as "the winning position on the framework debate being deontology means we should evaluate theory from a deontic perspective", but you need to justify it properly. I'm willing to listen to things like "skep negates theory," but whether or not I vote on that is dependent on the specific kind of skep, and how well you articulate your reasons for saying that; that's the toughest thing to apply from the post-fiat to the pre-fiat level, so don't think you can just say "he/she dropped skep, skep negates theory" and sit down.

Policy Args (Plans, CPs, Disads, etc): I am vaguely familiar with the basic composition of policy style arguments, and have a good enough grasp of the vocabulary to not be lost from the start. However, I am not super familiar with more advanced policy concepts that rarely see LD rounds. I know this is vague, so if you're worried I recommend asking me specifics before the round. If I don't know what something is, then explain what it is well. Also, you should justify why your policy arg is sufficient to win you the ballot, as you should with every argument.

Post-Round: Feel free to question me on my RFD, but don't get angry at me or your opponent. I will treat you with respect and will listen to what you have to say. Please do the same.

Speaker Points: I average around a 28. Points from there are given or taken away based on your strategy in-round, if you're a good person, and if you were comprehensible. The "quickest" way to a 30 is probably a well-run critical position, but don't run things you're not comfortable with. Humor can help boost you as well, if you're legitimately hilarious I'll probably give you a 30, but if you're being that funny then you're probably running irony or something, in which case a Loss 30 is pretty certain if you lose your Role of the Ballot. If you're debating someone well below your experience level and you're helpful instead of arrogant, I'll reward you; let's help kids learn and grow instead of bullying them because we can. Also, feel free to run args like "drop me, but give me a 30" if you have good enough justifications.

Basically, debate how you like, and have fun!

Judging Philosphy - Pranav Reddy

I debated at Harker for six years, graduated in 2015, and have judged sporadically since. I debated primarily on the national circuit and am comfortable with most national circuit constructs and arguments (i.e. should be okay with whatever speed or whatever you have in mind). That being said, a couple of notes:

I have a minimum standard for coherence of arguments or evidence - this means I'm willing to intervene in the spirit of ensuring that arguments are coherent, it's not enough to just have something dropped, I'll also uphold a minimum standard of "does this make sense?"

I am not a good judge for bad theory - this is a good example of where the above standard will be applied. I need theory to be clear, blitzing through twenty reasons for RVI's bad won't count if I can't understand it, I won't use the speech doc to forgive unclear or too fast argumentation.

I generally enjoy kritikal arguments and plan-based arguments, you'll find you need to explain philosophical positions in greater detail or slow down for me to get them. I hold a high standard for kritikal arguments, reading through your evidence without explanation is probably insufficient detail for the argument.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round! Good luck!

Updated 9.25.2020

Hey y'all, I'm Claire (she/her/hers). I'm an assistant for NFA-LD debate at Lafayette College. I previously coached LD & CX for Ridge HS (NJ), and at Western Kentucky University. I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ WKU, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I hold a B.A. in Communication Studies.

tl:dr/general -

I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I spend nearly all of my time in the world of NFA-LD, though I still like to keep up with HS debate as much as is reasonable.

Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.

Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.

Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.

Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.

I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.

Event specific -

CX/NFA-LD --

Aff

Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.

Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.

I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.

Disads

I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.

I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.

Counterplans

I'm open to most strategies.

It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.

Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.

CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.

Kritiks

I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.

I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.

I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.

I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.

I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.

T/Theory

I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.

I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.

I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.

Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.

Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.

I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.

Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.

Misc.

Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.

Flex prep is fine.

CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.

Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.

Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.

If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.

I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.

Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.

HS LD --

Progressive

You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:

Aff -

>Please justify your framework.

>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.

>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.

>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.

Neg -

> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.

> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.

>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.

>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.

> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.

> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.

Traditional

Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.

> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.

> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.

> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).

> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).

Hello All,

My name is Kevin Speina. I am a graduate student at Princeton University currently obtaining a PhD degree in Chemistry . I have been avidly judging speech and debate for now 5 years . I judge both individual events and LD events. In the context of debate, I consider myself to be quite strict for the following reasons: As a scientist and former debater, the concept of necessary and sufficient is of upmost importance. With every premise, there must be substantial evidence that bolsters your argument. If you fail to substantiate your claims, your arguments lack context. Thus, your credibility diminishes. Additionally, appeal to ignorance or attacking the opponents' claims without evidence are deleterious tactics insofar as you are highlighting to me that your claims/arguments are unsubstantiated. In order to make your arguments necessary and sufficient you need evidence to back your claims up and employ tactics such as syllogistic logic, logos, generalizations of data that can be made from your sources, and acknowledgment of the counter argument as a means of bolstering up yours. It's so important to speak clearly as well. I understand you have many points to make in a short period of time but REFRAIN from talking too fast because we can't follow your logical framework. Most importantly, be respectful. Do not attack your opponent's character or credibility. This is a poor tactic that succinctly shows me that you cannot bolster up your claims without attacking your opponents claim; this is fallacious and will compel me to make you loose the debate.

I have 3 years of collegiate Parliamentary debate experience, 1 semester of LD and 3 years of Speech experience (DUO, DI, Info). This is an activity designed to improve public communication skills and I give higher speaker points to students who communicate effectively as opposed to spreading. I vote for high quality, well-linked arguments. Please feel free to run K's, counterplans, etc. These all enhance the educational value of the round.

I am a traditional LD judge.

I am a recent high school graduate who did both speech and debate, so I understand all the rules and regulations fairly well. As someone who straddled both sides, I use speech as a tiebreaker (if all arguments are perfectly balanced - which is albeit unlikely - then the better speaker would be the winner). Keep in mind too that the better you speak, the better I can follow your arguments and the more likely I am to give your arguments credence anyway.

I would think this would be fairly obvious based on what precedes, but I'll be explicit; try not to spread. I don't like Ks or things of the sort, but I will of course allow them and judge them fairly. Emphasize definitions. Be respectful.

As an assistant coach and high school teacher, several things stand out to me in LD and PF Debate Rounds:

- Link your arguments clearly. I cannot assume that your line of reasoning is valid.

- I appreciate clear offtime roadmaps so that I know where to flow your arguments.

- Theory and Kritik is OK, but often overused and not authentic enough. I'm rarely convinced.

- Spreading is ok to an extent if it is done clearly. If you're too fast, you'll need to flash me your case.

- I want to walk away believing you are more right in the round and will make a final decision on that, whether or not you have more offense on the flow or were strategically ahead. It's more important that your arguments are presented believably, authentically, well-linked, and logically.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com