I competed as an AZ policy debater (1A/2N).

I really don't like K's. If you really want to hear my opinion on them ask my before/after round. I will NOT vote you down if you run a K, but it'll be an uphill battle for you since I prefer policy arguments a lot more, so you'll have to do a really good job on that K to convince me. Still, I don't recommend running a K. If you're running theory please either explain it briefly in round or give me a quick crash course before the round in case I've forgotten it.

While I have been looking at some camp files, assume I have no prior knowledge on this year's resolution other than what I've been hearing in rounds as a judge and as an average citizen. You don't need to explain the resolution to me like a lay judge but I've only judged this resolution once this school year.

I will try to keep my Verbal RFD's as concise as possible. My handwriting isn't good so value verbal RFD over written RFD. If you'd like me to expand on my RFD you can ask me once the verbal RFD is over so others can get to their next round on time.

General

- I won't flow cross-ex but I do listen and take mental-note, it's one of my favorite parts of a round. Cross-ex factors heavily into speaker points for me and decently into the overall vote.

- I don't count flashing as prep, but if you take too long I'll warn you before I start counting it.

- I'm a bit rusty on listening to spreading but if you do the following then there shouldn't be any problems:

- Super clear (don't mumble or whisper)

- Flash me everything including analytics (if you don't flash the analytics to me then you run the risk of me not catching what you said).

- Go in the order of the speech doc, and if you skip parts of a card tell me where to mark them, or if you skip whole cards tell me which ones you skip.

- If your arguments are great but I can't flow them correctly due to your speaking, then you're wasting your time. Make it clear, straightforward, down the flow, and in a clean order I can read in the flashed files.

- Please use speechdrop.net. If you would use that, that'd be great. If not, email chain works. If not, USB works.

- Speaker points:

<27: no bueno, I had a lot of trouble understanding you.
27-27.9: mediocre, I had really had trouble understanding you.
28-28.9: good, I had a decent amount of trouble understanding you.
29-29.4: very good, I had a bit of trouble understanding you.
29.5-30: excellent, I had no trouble understanding you.

These aren't hard and fast ranges but this should give you an idea. Differs round-by-round.

I like debates on the topic, but if you argue well otherwise I'll consider your argument.

I like case specific literature and disads, weak links will require a greater burden of proof and explanation.

I usually default on competing interpretations on T.

I usually hold theory arguments to a high standard (Doesn't mean I won't consider your arguments). Better to focus on case than whining. 

Trick or Kritik? I'm not read on all K literature so before you flex your K tricks on me you should, as a famous scholar once said in a song, "Know Yourself."

Your speaker points will be fine. They might go up more if you read 13 minutes of A-spec in the block.

Each speech should have a 3 minute overview and 2 minute underview. 2AR should be full of new arguments.

Just kidding this isn't PFD.

I like debaters who intimidate their opponents by twirling Pilot G-2's in both their hands.

You can add me on Runescape if you're good.

Inspirational Quotes:

"Lil B taught me how to create the Pokedex" -Professor Oak

"Lil B was the original Super Saiyan" -Vegeta

"I became a master chef because of Lil B" -Gordon Ramsey

Tim Alderete - The Meadows School

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: debatecards.charlotte@gmail.com. Please add me to the email chain.

NDT/CEDA Experience: Debated at Weber State for Omar Guevara and Ryan Wash. Graduate Assistant at Kansas State for Alex McVey and JT.

Other Experience: Assistant coach for Manhattan High, Layton, and Lincoln Southeast doing LD and speech. Harbinger Debate, Shanghai.

Current Position: 3L at University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Clerkship for the Lancaster County Public Defender.

Judging Thesis: I understand my role to be evaluating the PERSUASIVENESS of the arguments debaters make, in whatever format they choose to present it. This role may shift if I am given a clear and persuasive argument to do so. FACTORS WHICH MAKE AN ARGUMENT MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME INCLUDE: IDENTIFIED CONCESSIONS ON THE FLOW, EXAMPLES, CORRECT APPLICATION OF KEY TERMS FROM YOUR SCHOLARSHIP, CREDIBILITY OF SOURCE AUTHORS, EXPLANATORY POWER, AND STRATEGIC CHOICES.

Disability Accommodations: All reasonable requests for accommodation for any disability will be granted, or the team will lose. Debaters do not need evidence to prove that they have a disability. I am seeking to reward alternative speaking styles which are not based on the traditional norm of spreading and technical jargon, although mastery of that style is indeed very impressive. Please see this article for more discussion of disability access in policy debate: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&context=speaker-gavel

Advice for Debaters:

K AFF v FW: I am entirely willing to entertain kritikal affs. However the affirmative will probably lose if they fail to contextualize their argument to the actual dispute happening in the round. One way this often occurs is when the affirmative proffers some kind of alternative which they aren't actually doing. The negative will probably lose if they fail to elaborate on why fairness or education matter. Fairness is only an impact in relation to the ethics of a specific community, the value of competition, etc. Education is only an impact in relation to a specific role for debaters, the value of certain literature bases, etc. Why should your values and the community you imagine succeed over theirs? What are debaters supposed to do with the type of education you prioritize?

THEORY: I will only write a ballot for frivolous arguments if I have no other choice. Disagreements about rules or procedures CAN have substance and are NOT discouraged, but you must use your judgment to decide whether the argument you are making is worth the air you spend saying it.

KRITIKS: High theory is cool and good when you are cool and good. I am excited to learn more about your literature and what you think it means. However, I will notice common sense questions about what you are saying and if there is no satisfying answer, I will not be persuaded to vote for you.

DA's: These are available to you by right. Go hog-wild. However, just because your terminal impact has the same label as the affirmative impact does not mean that your disad turns the aff. You must explain how your scenario interacts with theirs.

CP's: I have a pretty high bar for abuse. If there is any relevant difference between the CP and the plan, I think the aff has ground and its generally good to test that difference. I think part of aff ground is some wiggle room on intrinsicness. I think an affirmative can argue that some reasonable action, outside the plan, could be taken to resolve the CP net benefit in order to show that the CP is not competitive. This wiggle room is limited and certainly does not allow object fiat. Teams operating in this zone should construct additional theory arguments.

ROB/ROJ: This can be a valuable opportunity to explain the implications of your position and to make my decision clearer. But, I have zero interest in a ROB argument which merely serves to repeat your impact weighing argument or your alternative. That's not what this type of argument is for.

I think the negative has a burden to ENGAGE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE in some way. Links should be contextualized to the specific affirmative that you are debating.

In high school debates, I WILL NOT evaluate an argument which is overly hostile toward another competitor’s identity or presence at the tournament, and I WILL consider dropping the team. Almost everything is permitted, but there are certain lines you cannot cross. In college y’all are mostly adults so go off, but I will probably need some clarification about my role in resolving that dispute, because my default assumption is that I don’t have jurisdiction over the value of a person’s life/presence/identity. I will always have a low bar to defeat hate, because HATE IS NOT PERSUASIVE.

Background: I competed in LD for four years in high school and now compete for ASU policy (this is my second year on the team). I now am mainly a critical debater but will listen to anything (anti blackness/queer theory). Please don't abuse flashing/prep. Also when you extend arguments say the warrant and don't just repeat the tag. Please add me to the email: laurenbarney99@gmail.com.

I will probably not be super familiar with PF/CX topics as I coach LD.

If you say anything offensive/racist I will probably dock your speaker points if your opponent points it out. I will increase speaker points for smart arguments/strategic decisions on your part (like collapsing down in the last speech to arguments you're ahead on).

Theory/T: Clearly explain the abuse/why the interp is good. Slow down for interps, I want to make sure I catch it. Make sure to answer a TVA. Please don't run frivolous theory in front of me- these are my least favorite rounds to judge.

Ks: I am a critical debater and understand K debate well that being said articulate a clear link to the affirmative and what the voting issue is. I will vote for progressive affirmatives and think you might want to make an argument about how the K is a shift and reframes how I should view a "traditional" round. That being said don't assume that I am familiar with your specific literature base.

K Affs: Please try to limit the buzzwords you use and clearly explain your impacts materially. I think framework is incredibly important when Ks vs Framework or Ks vs Policy aff arguments happen. Think about the implications for debate that your interpretation has and explain it. You should be able to defend your model of debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I am a policy maker/stock issues judge. If I am going to vote affirmative, it is going to be because the affirmative team presents a clear case that maintains all of the stock issues throughout the debate round. If I am going to vote negative, it is going to be because the negative team has taken out one or more of the stock issues or has presented a counter plan with a clear net benefit. I believe that all three elements of rhetoric – ethos, pathos, and logos – should be evaluated equally, and as a result, I will weigh your speaking ability equally against logic and evidence. I value strong analytical argumentation, clear links in your logic and clash in debate. While I will listen to K, I expect links to the stock issues at hand. The current trend of not valuing flow because you've flashed evidence is extremely problematic for me. If you drop arguments because of your unwillingness to actually listen to your opponent, that will count you against in my evaluation of the round.

LD Paradigm:
I am a traditional LD judge. Even though I understand K's, counterplans, etc., I am not a fan of them in LD. Plan on referencing the philosophers and why your case offers the values and criterion needed to win the round. Clear speaking, not speed counts.
I am not a fan of speed but I can deal with it to a certain extent. Your analyticals and your tags must be clear or your speaker points will suffer accordingly. I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. In my other life, I am a teacher of English and rhetoric.

Hello fabulous competitors, I have been a coach at Palo Verde High School for 20+ years for all events including speech.

Please put me on the chain, bersesm@nv.ccsd.net
I want to be on the doc, but this is NOT a supplement for you to be unclear and speak at incomprehensible speech.

Please be respectful to me, your judges, and your opponents. Disrespect and hate have no place in the debate space.

For LD I am more of a traditionalist, but I am open to more progressive argumentation, at the end of the day, its up to competitors to make warrants and explain their argument, I am NOT interventionist, I will not do the work for you.

Value and Value Criterion are crucial to the way I evaluate the debate and judge you

Kritiks are fine, I just need clear framing and warranting

Voting issues NEED to be in later speeches

Theory as a whole does NOT outweigh substantive arguments

I will not evaluate frivolous theory

Please don't run tricks

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net

Background

I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, where I placed 9th at NSDAs and attended TOC.

Paradigm (LD)

The most important thing to winning my ballot is weighing. I try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible, so in your 2AR/NR you need to explain the layers of the debate and why I should prefer your arguments. If you don't adequately extend or impact an argument, I will have a tough time voting for it. Besides that, I evaluate all arguments on the flow. Below are some considerations:

Substance
I read all types of arguments in high school (philosophy, plans, disads, meta standards, etc), so feel free to read what you feel most comfortable with. That said, I especially enjoy nuanced and non-traditional positions (post-modernism, obscure-yet-topical authors, etc) , and will reward them with higher speaks. I award speaker points primarily based on organization and strategy. Please don't ask me to disclose speaks.

Speed
I am more than comfortable with speed, so long as you are clear (and I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't). Please slow down for tags, plan texts, interps, etc.

Theory / Topicality
I see theory as a response to legitimate abuse, and have a very low tolerance for abusive arguments (multiple a prioris, PICs, abusive definitions, etc). I default to reasonability on clear-cut abuse, but can be persuaded to evaluate competing interpretations, assuming the abuse is not clear. That said, I do not enjoy watching theory debates, and would much prefer you point out the abuse to me as the judge, and get back to substance.

Kritiks
Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round. For that reason, I am most willing to vote on stock, topical kritiks (like neoliberalism, colonialism, biopower, etc).

TL;DR

Talk Fast. Weigh. Don't be Abusive.

Hi, I'm Richard Bui and I am currently studying business marketing and political science at Arizona State University.

I've competed in Speech and Debate for all four years and I competed in interp, platform, and LD -- so I have a good idea of what's going on!

SLOW TAGS. I can handle speed; however, this year, I decided to switch over to paperless flowing and while I'm starting to get the hang of it, all I ask is that you slow down a tad bit for the tags just in case.

I LOVE progressive arguments and Kritiks. The more obscure, the better! At the end of the day, LD is all about learning so I want to ensure that there are new ideas being thrown around, not repeat arguments that will be spewed 50 times in one day. So if you have a case that seems "too progressive", I'll probably really want to hear it.

I'm not a fan of theory although I will flow it. But if your opponent manages to provide an argument against your theory, I'll probably drop it. Of course, I'll consider reasonability, but if the debate can function just fine without theory, don't theory. I have never voted for someone because of theory -- that doesn't mean I'm not open to it, it just means I have never heard of a valid reason to vote on it yet.

Down to the nitty-gritty stuff, I want you to constantly link to the framework. If you give me an impact without real implications into the framework, I won't know what to do with it.

Crystallize. I care about the arguments that win you the round, not the ones that are simply there to cover all the arguments. With that said, I don't really consider your opponent dropping an argument as "conceding". In a round full of disads and whatnot, it's merely "I didn't have time". Of course, if they mention it later, I will consider it a new argument and won't vote it/flow it through. But go ahead and flow your arguments made and tell me why that argument matters and wins you the round. But don't label it as "They didn't have time to address it so they concede and agree with me".

I can handle speed. Just make sure that you enunciate clearly. Slow down for tags and author titles. Pause for a second. Then go ahead and spread again. Just let me catch those tags.

Make this round CRYSTAL clear. I want you to essentially write my ballot/RFD for me. In KVI's, tell me exactly what two or three arguments actually matter in the round and why they win you the round. Phrase it all in a way that makes it very obvious how I should judge this round. Don't give me a bunch of arguments and then go "here's evidence! You decide what you want to do with it!" because that's not my job as a judge, that's your job as a competitor.

Also, I don't care how you present. Sit down. Stand up. Whatever works for you. As for flex prep, I don't care and I would actually encourage that you use it if you missed some arguments in your opponent's constructive so that you can actually use CX time to actually CX and poke holes.

Don't be racist/xenophobic/homophobic/transphobic...all the phobics.

I am a lay judge but have judged several times

I do not like speed. If I can't understand you, then I can judge you fairly.

I like traditional arguments that are well supported

Make sure your cards support your arguments, don't just quote them.

Paradigm

Conflicts: West High School, SLC UT

I debated for West High School in Salt Lake City for 4 years during LD and graduated in 2017. I am familiar with both progressive and traditional arguments. I will try my best to objectively evaluate the round. Please overview and crystalize in your last speeches. My speed comprehension is around 8/10. I will try to intervene as little as possible. For speaks, I start on a 28.5 and move up or down based on strategy and arguments.

Specific arguments:

Theory

I enjoy theory but I prefer there to be in round abuse rather than potential abuse. I default to competing interps and No RVI's. I take no stance on whether education comes before fairness or vice versa. If you do run theory, try to keep it organized. If you plan on running a bunch of spikes, please keep it organized.

Plans / CP / DAs

Slow down on your plan text. DAs need a clear link story. Please make sure there is clash.

Framework

I am familiar with most common frameworks and their arguments but if you have a very nuanced framework please slow and spend a bit more time explaining it.

K's

Same with framework; I am familiar with most common ones but explain it further if it is not a common argument.

If you have any more specific question feel free to clarify before round.

I competed as an LD debater for Chandler High for 4 years, I now attend ASU but I don't debate anymore. 

Speed: I am pretty good with speed, don't spread as if its for dear life. Just make sure to slow down on taglines, contentions, and authors. It gets really unclear on my flow if you go too fast. I'll yell clear if needed. 

Weighing: I weigh heavily on Framework. I see a lot of debaters get stuck on contention level clash and forget about framework. Overall, please weigh your arguments with some impact calc like timeframe, magnitude, scope, and probability. It will make it easier for me to weigh the round. Also, please provide a warrant for every argument. Your responses should be reasonable and logical. It's good to cross apply but don't simply say "I cross apply this contention on my opponents case" and thats it, give me a reason why. This goes for extensions as well, don't make blanket statements. To me, extensions can definitely make or break the round. 

Policy Style: 

If you do run K/CP/DA/K/Theory Shell/Plan, understand the structure. I prefer that you signpost and provide me a road map. If you're running anything progressive tell me beforehand. 

Theory: Theory isn't really my thing, especially if it's abusive or it's a time suck. However, I will flow them. Make sure you know how to run a theory shell. I will vote on theory if you provide a tangible warrant and extend your standard for abuse. Tell me why your opponent is abusive and why theory matters. Since I am not a huge fan of theory, I won't easily buy into generic theory arguments that assumes education and fairness matters. I will judge theory like any other argument and evaluate the strength of the warrant. 

Critical Arguments/K's: K's are cool. I will flow them. Make sure you understand your Kritik and your literature well. Not knowing your literature really takes away the education in this round, especially if you're just running it because you know your opponent won't understand it. Instead, prove to me why there is something morally wrong inround and preferably have some sort of alt. Since I'm not well read on every K authors, please do your best to explain them and provide good links. I'm cool with performance K's so don't be afraid to run them. If you're able to convince me that your K makes an immense impact or solves inround, I will vote for you. 

CP, DA: I'm good with those. Don't forget to do some weighing and have a framework in them. 

Etiquette: I won't count flashing as prep time. I'm okay with flex prep as long as your opponent is good with it.I won't flow cross ex, so if you bring up a point from cross ex please reiterate.

If you say anything racist, sexist, or offensive I will vote you down instantly. Also one more important thing: Be nice to your opponent!!! Shake their hand after round. Don't talk down to your opponent.

I'm cool with y'all sitting or standing during your cx or rebuttals. Don't forget to give me eye contact. I have bad hearing so don't talk too soft. I don't trust evidence that cannot be shared via email or usb. If it cannot be shared, I won't evaluate it. 

Speaker Points: I will start speaks at 27. It can either go up or down based from your performance. I will award extra speaks if you can provide good rhetoric, solid analogies, or puns. 

Feel free to ask me any questions in round :D 

I DON'T WANT TO SHAKE YOUR HAND PLEASE DON'T ASK

Now that that friendly introduction is over:

Email: maanik.chotalla@gmail.com

I'll disclose speaks if you ask.

Background: I debated LD for four years for Brophy College Preparatory in Arizona. Graduated in 2016. Current LD coach for Brophy College Preparatory.

TOC Update: I haven’t updated my paradigm in a few years and while my attitude towards debate hasn’t fundamentally changed the activity and norms within it have very much changed so I felt a need to write an update. At its core, I do believe this activity is still about speaking and so I do still value debaters being able to articulate and deliver. Yes I will still vote tech but I have very little patience for debaters who refuse to adapt and articulate. My preference is to not be reading your rebuttal off a document, if it isn’t on my flow I can’t vote for it. All that said—my advice to you is to go slightly below your max speed with me. I believe every judge embellishes their flowing ability to a degree and while I’m not awful at flowing I am certainly not as good as I used to be and I also have no competitive incentive like you do to be perfect on the flow. I will do my best but I am certainly going to be a cut under most judges that were former TOC competitors. I am simply in a spot in where debate is no longer my whole life (just a large part of it) and I have not been able to keep up with everything. Will do my best but if you are expecting a robot judge you will be disappointed.

Crash Course version:
-Go for whatever you want, I like all forms of argumentation
-Have fun, debate is an evolving activity and I'm all for hearing creative well-warranted arguments
-The round belongs to the debaters, do what you want within reason
-Tech > truth, extend your warrants, do impact analysis, weigh
-I default to competing interps but will go for reasonability if you tell me to
-For Ks please be prepared to explain your obscure lit to me, don't assume I'll know it because I promise you I won't. It will benefit you if you give an overview simplifying the K.
-If you run a theory shell that's fine but I don't really like it when a shell is read as a strictly strategic decision, it feels dirty. I'll probably still vote for you if you win the shell unless it's against a novice or someone who clearly had no idea how to respond to it.
-Default to epistemic confidence
-Good with speed
-Don't like tricks
-Don't be rude, the key to this activity is accessibility so please don't be rude to any debaters who are still learning the norms. This activity is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone

For the LARP/Policy Debater:
-You don't necessarily have to read a framework if you read a plan but if your opponent reads a framework I'm more likely to default to it unless you do a good job with the framework debate in the 1AR.
-If you run a framework it can be either philosophically or theoretically justified, I like hearing philosophy framing but that is just a personal preference
-Utilize your underview, I'm guessing you're reading it for a reason so don't waste your time not extending it.
-Running multiple counterplans is okay, prefer that you provide solvency
-Make sure your counterplan does not link yourself back into your DA, please

For the K Debater:
-Please label each section of your K (link/framing/impact/alt) it makes it more clear to me how the argument is supposed to function
-If you aren't running a typically organized K then please just explain the argument properly as to how I should evaluate it
-If your ROTB is pre-fiat you still need to respond to post-fiat framing to completely win framework debate
-Feel free to ask more questions before the round

For the traditional debater/Philosophy Debate/everyone else
-Crash course version should cover everything. I have more below for the people who really want to read it but you can always ask more questions beforehand

More details:

1. General

I like debates which are good. Debaters who are witty, personable, and I daresay good speakers usually score higher on speaker points with me. I'll vote on any argument (So long as it isn't blatantly offensive or reprehensible in some way). I'm a big believer that the round should belong to the debaters, so do with the debate space what you wish.

I like framework debate a lot. This is what I did as a debater and I believe that it makes the round very streamlined. I always like hearing new and cool philosophies and seeing how they apply, so run whatever you want but please be prepared to explain them properly.

Please slow down on impacts and pause between tags and authors!! Yeah, I know everyone has the case right in front of them nowadays but I still want you slowing down and pausing between your authors and tags. Finally, for both of our sakes, please IMPACT to a weighing mechanism. I have seen too many rounds lacking impact analysis and weighing. It's possible it will lead to a decision you don't like if you don't impact well. I don't particularly care what weighing mechanism you impact to so long as you warrant to me that it's the more important one.

2. Theory/T

Run whatever shells you would like but nothing frivolous, please. I wouldn't recommend reading theory as strictly a strategic play in front of me but I will still evaluate it and vote on it if you prove there is actual abuse in round. I default to competing interps but will go with whatever you tell me. In general, I think you should layer theory as the most important issue in the round if you read it, otherwise what was the point in reading it?

Shells I will likely not vote on:
-Dress Code theory
-Font size theory
-Double-win theory (I'll probably just drop whoever initiated it)
-Frivolous shells unrelated to debate (i.e. lets play mario kart instead)
-Comic Sans theory
-This list will grow with time

3. Tricks

I don't like them. Don't run them. They make for bad debate.

4. Ks

I myself was never a K debater but I've now found myself really enjoying hearing them as an argument. I'd appreciate if you could label your K or section it off. I wasn't a K debater so I don't automatically know when the framing begins or when the impacts are etc. The biggest problem I usually see with Ks is that I don't understand the framing of the argument or how to use it as a weighing mechanism, so please help me so I can understand your argument as best as I can. I have dropped Ks because I just didn't understand the argument, err on the side of me not knowing if it is a complex/unconventional K.

5. Miscellaneous

I don't time flashing/making docs during the round but I expect it to take no longer than 30 seconds. Try to have a speech doc ready to go before each round. I'm good with flex prep. I don't care if you sit or stand. I'll hop on your email chain. Don't be rude, that should go without saying. Lastly, and I mean this seriously, please have fun with it. I really prefer voting for debaters who look like they're having a good time debating.

If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round or contact me via email

Hello! I'm going to get right to it. I've been coaching Speech and Debate for 19 years. I’ve judged policy and LD at the local and national level. In LD, I’ve judged national semi-final rounds and also had the honor to be part of the national panel as a judge for the final round.

Use of Jargon or technical language: I got you. I prefer Ks and theory that apply directly to the resolution and the context of the round. I will rarely vote on a K or theory if it doesn’t foster debate on the resolution. I also want to hear LD debaters uphold their value - it's the only thing that makes LD unique; therefore, it must be won to win my ballot.

I am a flow judge in that I will track your arguments and look at clash and drops, analyzing who wins each argument on the flow. Given that, be specific in your signposting and tell me where you want me to put things on the flow. I look at your arguments (60%) and your delivery (40%). Share your cases with me if you’re planning on going fast; I’m ok with speed.

Please be respectful to your opponents and judges. Respect is one of the basic tenets of this activity and must be upheld. (Can you see my LD roots showing?) With that being said, let’s debate!

Hey guys, I am Mathew and I am more than likely jazzed about being your judge for the round.

I am a coach for Mountain View High School in Mesa Arizona with my specialties being in Congress and Public Forum.

In terms of LD I am fairly experienced with the debate. I was a competitor in it for my senior year of high school (yay being PF partners with someone a year older than you) I am very familiar with progressive debate.

Admittedly I am partial to Kritiks and Plans if you are going to go for the progressive route in the round. Of course I am willing to listen to theory but honestly there needs to be a real reason for it. Semantic theory shells will annoy me.

I am honestly really laid back, flex prep? Go ahead. Weird stuff you are trying out for the first time? Be my guest I love to be entertained. Reading free form poetry to smooth jazz in the middle of your 2ar? I don't see why, but by all means go ahead.

The only request I will make is in terms of speed. Sure you can speak a little faster than one might. But shy on the side of slow when it comes to the speed. If you are going too fast I will yell "clear" but the third time I say it my pen is going down and twitter memes will occupy my time for the rest of your speech.

Random Musing's

- Pls be nice to each other, I was always the mean debater but I think its a bad practice and I'll be sad if you are.

Best of luck to all of y'all

I'll reserve judgement round by round.

However, I want a couple things to be known.

First, keep the rounds clean. Honestly, I'll vote for most things, however if you ask yourself whether this is okay to run, then don't run it.

Second, if I can't understand what you're saying I'm not going to flow it.

Finally, I expect, as high school students, that you have the maturity to solve in round issues. Let me know if you need my input during round.

Ask me anything else within round.

Speed is fine - will give verbal cues like "clear" or "louder" if necessary.

I view theory as an issue of competing interpretations and a reason to drop the argument. I'd consider dropping the debater if there's some kind of extra abuse like intimidation, etc.

I am academically familiar with western philosophy through contemporary topics/authors and eastern philosophy through the end of the 19th century. I am always down for skepticism or a good kritik.

I wouldn't say I hold any biases, but I work as a software engineer and am uncomfortable voting for arguments that I know are blatantly false. Some topics I have a "deeper" knowledge of than the average person include cyber security, data science (statistics/machine learning), and hardware architecture.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me.

I look for a clear, understandable LD debate with strong clash of values and criterion.  

Don't spew; I can't judge your arguments if I can't understand them.  

How to win the round: give a clear roadmap; cite your evidence clearly so that I can note it; constantly show how your points and evidence tie back to your value and criterion, attack your opponent's case but be polite, professional, and fair to your opponent; get your opponent to admit that your value is primary; employ logos/ethos/pathos in appealing to me; point out your points that flow through and those dropped by your opponent.

How to lose the round: bring in Ks and counter plans and jargon that you simply recite and can't explain in your own simple, powerful words; be rude and/or abusive to your opponent; spew so quickly that I stop taking notes; ignore me as the judge and just look at your laptop; drop points; tell me what I should think or do instead of persuading me; admit that your opponent's value trumps yours.  

Sharon Ellsworth-Nielson

Im a mommy judge. Do not spread or I will not be able to flow the round.

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

pls just gimme paper and pen. I'm gonna ask.

Judging experience:

- I competed in PF for 4 years in Las Vegas (yay, Golden Desert)

- Currently debating (policy) at ASU (woohoo, Arizona State University)

Important stuff

- if u think that a college policy debater has a high speed threshold... u right. speed threshold is high

- I don't flow cross

Extra stuff

How to win my ballot... a guide:

1. Tell me how you want me to judge the round

2. Articulate how you win by [however reason you judged that round] and why your opponent doesn't (you can even tell me why your opponent's way of me judging the round is a nono!!)

.... because I'll vote for anything as long as it's clear lol, I'm not picky. Ks, theory, CP... blah blah blah. Just tell me what you're going for.

- It's 2018, so we're treating people in the debate community with RESPECT! I don't care if I can see the fiery hatred for whoever you're debating against in your eyes but that better not come through your words or your actions. I used to be like "hoho I'm a cool judge and sass can sometimes be funny" (which is tru, I'll let you decide what part)... but to others sass and killing their view that debate can be a welcoming space so tread lightly and just remember that words do matter. I know that y'all know this because you're participating... in speech.. and debate.

- I'm good with speed. But if you can't spread, that's okay with me. Don't do anything you're not comfortable with and debate the way you want to

- I like signposting. I always flow, so it just makes me feel secure in knowing, "oh yes, they ARE talking about X, I didn't miss something and they DO want me to evaluate that stuff they're saying to this argument!" If you don't do it, I hope your speech is well structured because I'm gonna be like "oh hahaha great round" on the outside but "why did u make me do so much work for u flipping between papers" on the inside.

- Why I don't flow cross-ex: If you want me to care about an argument, say it during your speech because that's what the speech is for. Like cross-ex is the only time you have to have an instantaneous response from your opponent so it makes no sense to me why you'd waste it on repeating what you said. Like.. ask questions to make your NEW speech

- On 1/5/2018 I realised my deep disdain for people being like "hohoho u weren't listening to me do u want me to just say my WHOLE case over again?" - like... no. Obviously not. Your opponent does not want to hear the words that already confused them repeated back to them and neither do I. This is the quickest way to getting 20 speaker points in front of me because it's unproductive and unnecessarily rude.

- My email is nofiguer@asu.edu if you have questions

IF Y'ALL DON'T PUT THE ROOM BACK TOGETHER WHEN YOU'RE DONE, I'M NOT DISCLOSING AND I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE PEN THAT I WILL INEVITABLY ASK FOR BACK.

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument solely for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This above considerations were written largely to apply to my approach to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

Update for CARD:

A lot of the same things as above apply to how I approach CARD. I really enjoy the nature of CARD, and believe strongly in its philosophy of academic discourse and community building. The ideal round of CARD, for me, would see two teams engaging the literature in a thorough and meaningful fashion, which means I'm looking for good evidence comparison work --why, perhaps, I should believe the warrants in the evidence being produced by one team, over that of the other. Debate is much more a game of listening than one of speaking, and so I'm looking for you to be listening to your opponents arguments, and engaging them on the line-by-line debate to do that kind of quality evidence comparison that the format calls for. Ultimately, I will be evaluating the round on who does the more effective job of convincing me on the merits or risks of the proposed advocacy. One of the nice things about a limited library of evidence is that it tends to curb some of the more ridiculous catastrophizing that can happen in other forms of debate, and concerns like probability and timeframe often become more important than assessing which version of existential doom seems bigger. Take some time when you're doing evidence comparison and impact analysis work to consider which outcomes might be more likely, or might happen quicker, and how that might impact whether a particular proposal will save us from what appears increasingly to be a very dark fate at the hands of anthropogenic climate change.

And above all, number 6 above applies strongly here. Have fun. Be kind, generous, and charitable to your opponent's arguments. Treat them with the same respect and dignity you feel that you deserve. Building community happens in round, as much as out of round. I notice when a question in cross-ex seems snarky or condescending. So do the people who are being asked such questions. Approach these debates in good faith, and with an aim to make this community a welcoming place that doesn't chase people off when they don't live up to some arbitrary standard of 'good,' or when they aren't part of the 'in group.' - My favorite thing about CARD is that I see this kind of behavior very rarely, so maybe none of this needs to be said explicitly here. But I will say it anyway as a word of encouragement to everyone who I've seen step up to make this event so enjoyable and welcoming.

A little bit about me, I debated two years of LD at Arbor View High School in Las Vegas, and this is currently my third year debating Policy at Arizona State University. I am a junior majoring in Political Science and double minoring in Philosophy and African and African American studies. Fill free to introduce yourselves before round, too! :)

When judging, I want you to tell me what to vote for. I want you to tell me what I should value most in round and why. Establish the voter issues in round and tell me what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

I am okay with spreading, but I will not vote on an argument that you do not articulate well enough to me, or that I simply cannot understand. If it's important, it is your job to make sure that I understand that. Why is everything that you are saying important? Why does what you have to say matter? Why are you right?

As far as policy and/or K debates, you run whatever you want to run; I will vote on anything. Debate shouldn’t be about debaters making the space better, it should be about debaters using the space to better themselves and others. You do you boo! I am not a fan of framework. Run at your own risk... I am fair though. I believe debaters should be able to talk about epistemology first and foremost if they want to, and I believe that you should be able to talk about things that you really care about, within reason. This is why I think framework is lame. Framework makes for boring debates in my opinion. There are no rules, only norms! Engage in the arguments being made! But with this being said, that doesn’t mean that you will absolutely not lose to it on the AFF if you don’t answer it well enough.

NEG, you need to prove to me why the AFF is a bad idea. Or else, I’m going to vote an affirmative ballot. AFF, you need to prove to me why you are a good idea. Or else, I will vote a negative ballot. Give me clash!

Flow and organization is important to me. I like to know where I am throughout the debate. I will not vote on arguments you drop in round. I am also not fond of new 2ARs and 2NRs. I will not vote on arguments that come this late in the debate. Your strongest arguments are most likely the ones articulated throughout the entire debate anyways.

I like to consider myself a smart gal, but it is likely that you know more about the topic and what you like to run more than I do. I am still learning too! Make sure you explain to me well enough what your position actually is in round. My face is pretty easy to read, so if I look confused its probably because I am. Don’t leave me lost at the end of the debate.

As for speaker points, be clear, be cordial, don’t be offensive, and have good articulations in round. Bonus points if you make me laugh.

Other than that, be nice and have fun!

Please do not run theory. I will respond well to arguments that are concise and topical. I do not want to hear about the role of debate, I want to hear about the resolution.

Framework debate is important (focus on the criterion/standard/whatever it is being called nowadays). Arguments and impacts need to be weighed under some form of framework. Tell me why you win. Give me clash and impacts. Extend arguments throughout the round. I am fine with progressive styles though I tend to prefer traditional argumentation. Mixed feelings on theory. It truly depends on the situation and if theory is applicable/ should be used. I tend to be irritated by debaters that use theory as a time-suck and then drop it after the opponent answers it. I prefer that the resolution be addressed during the round. Jargon, speed, and flex prep are all acceptable. No off-time road maps.

Logan Guthrie

Coach at Mountain View High School, debated policy for Arizona State

lmguthrie0624@gmail.com

Overview

Hi, I am a tabula rasa judge that tries to minimize intervention as much as possible. This means that I value thorough extensions and arguments that arrive at a terminal impact. Unless otherwise argued, my default role as the judge is to compare competing worlds within an offense/defense paradigm. I am comfortable with speed and any literature base. Below are some thoughts on specific match-ups:

Plan vs. Counterplan

- I really appreciate numbered net-benefits when the debate gets muddled. Highlight the few stand-out impacts and then give judge instruction on how my decision should come together

K vs. Policy Affs

- Framework is really important. The K doesn't make much strategic sense if it doesn't re-orient the way I view my ballot or the round itself. Be sure to explain why ontology or epistemology comes before policy-making

- Alt's don't need to 'solve' the links of the criticism if you win framework. Just prove why the ballot is only a question of orientation, or a referendum on ethics, etc.

K vs. Fw

- Both sides should spend a significant amount of time on impact framing. How do I weigh a risk of unfairness against the risk of framework reproducing fascism? The debater that answers that question best is probably going to win

- Defense counter-interpretations are more persuasive with a clear model of debate under the k

- Topical Versions of the AFF (TVAs) with an explicit plan text are more persuasive than general assertions that the AFF could have been topical

K vs. K

- Comparative analysis is really important. Re-explaining their theory of the world or a particular structure through the lens of your own literature base is persuasive

- Be sure to emphasize the terminal impacts of the K -- Ex. Neoliberalism is an internal-link, not an impact

- The perm is probably important. I appreciate multiple, diverse arguments to prove or disprove competition (DAs, Solvency Deficits, etc.)

Theory

- Theory debates can get really messy, especially with competing interps, so weighing between standards or voters is key. I much prefer quality over quantity; collapse to a few standards or a single voter and sit on it

Random

- Please do your best to have the speech doc flashed when prep stops

- I usually only read cards after the round if they are flagged

- Clean up the room before you leave, it helps the tournament directors out a lot!

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

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

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

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

andreahaas@me.com

I am a former Lincoln Douglas debater and current assistant coach of La Cueva High School in Albuquerque, NM. My last competitive experience was at the 2008 National Tournament in LD. LD is my absolute favorite style of debate and where I feel most at home, but I frequently find myself judging policy rounds. I've judged policy at both the 2017 and 2018 national tournaments and lots of local and regional Arizona and New Mexico tournaments.

I believe that debate is meant to be a persuasive activity, and I lean toward preferring a slower style. I will not understand much if you spread. I am pretty traditionalist and value/criteria are really important to how I weigh a round. I am not entirely fluent in policy style argumentation or lingo and I expect logic and reasoning in your case. I will count flashing against your prep time and I'm not a fan of things like flex prep, taking over your partner's CX answers, etc.

If I'm judging you in a Public Forum round, know that I am even more traditionalist in PF than the other two debates. I love PF for what it is and what it was meant to be. Don't use Policy lingo or spreading.

I never tolerate rude, sexist, or racist behavior in a round and speaker points will reflect that if I see it. Be eloquent and persuasive. I need to see clash in the debate. Please clearly signpost for me and sum it all up for me with clear voting issues in your final speech.

I am a former Lincoln-Douglas debater (in lay Colorado, eg. Pure VC debate, I'm not familiar with other styles of LD) and a fairly new college CXDA debater. Generally my understanding of debate refers back to the former style, but I'm comfortable with most Policy terminology and style.

The Good, The Bad

I'm cool with aggression and passion, you're here because you enjoy it.

That said lets talk about spreading, if you spread, that's fine as long as I have your case, in order in front of me, don't expect me to follow your frenzied bullshit without a guide to follow.

Give all of your arguments a god damn warrant. Spout about how the other teams plan/status que/my decision is gonna kill people/cause thermonuclear war/make the internet slow (actually that last one's probably good in of itself, if you manage to link to that props man), it wont be a voter unless you can explain why those things are bad and why I have a duty to vote against them. If you refuse to do that I'm not going to consider your "harms" in my decision. The same goes for any Ks.

I will immediately be more likely to vote for you if you can boil down this debate to base philosophy, the best debate is value vs. value (using LD terms, but same goes for other formats) with plan vs status quo/counter-plan taking a supporting role.

The Ugly

The role of the ballet is to chose the best debater, if you want me to act otherwise you ought to be ready to actually convince me of it (which will almost always make you the better debater).

If you're in a policy round and aren't willing to send me and your opponents your speeches, I will not vote for you.

Overview

I flow everything that I hear and am able to understand excluding cross, so speed is not a problem to the extent that you annunciate and are clear, but if you get garbled and i can't understand you it will not end up on the flow.

LD:

Did PF in HS but have been judging both consistently for the 4 years. I'm always down for some progressive debate but be very explicit if your running progressive vs traditional b every explicit on why your theory outweighs or like keeps them in some ethical violation because I see no problem in voting for that, however, always try and run some solvency with it to prove that like you break out of the same problem. Other than that, I'm down for anything really.

In regards to speed, I'm fine with it, however, slow down on taglines, authors, contention titles and any analysis that you deem important for the round. If you become extremely unclear I will say clear. In weighing the round I think framework is very important to the round, and I want to ensure that you as a debater understand and actually link into it. If you don't you will get dropped so ensure that you have a clear reason and tell me why you link into your theory, and if you perm their's or any of their contention tell me why, don't just say it fits in my framework unless it's blatantly obvious. It is therefore it is imperative that you understand I ALWAYS weigh framework/Roll of Ballot is the first to be evaluated.

I'm down for anything really run whatever you feel comfortable with, but ensure that you actually understand. I try to be as tab as possible, so I'll vote for something if you give me enough legitimate backing for the argumentation. The Major Key to picking up my ballot is spending the last 30ish seconds of your last speech to breaking down and giving me voters. ALSO NEVER EVER FORGET EXTENSIONS, I WILL NOT EXTEND FOR YOU, IF YOU DROP IT, IT IS DROPPED.

PF:

Rebuttal: I don't like lazy debate its bad, that being said you have to give me a reason why I should accept your contention over theirs not just because the tags are different. In your rebuttal if you don't give me a reason to value your information/data whatever it may be I have no reason to.

Summaries: I need argument selection. Otherwise, the entire flow falls apart and I will be sad. Tell me why y'all are winning the arguments you choose and why they are important. If an argument was extended in neither summary, it isn't evaluated at the end of the round. Kicking out of arguments in the summary is strategic and I'll be very happy if you do it well.

Final Foci: My decision is based on the final focus, but the final focus must only include arguments extended through summary. Extending offense last mentioned in the rebuttal will make me sad and I won't evaluate them. Weighing your voters / strat is *hella* important. If you don't weigh in the final focus, you forfeit your right to complain if you lose (although you should never complain about your losses).

Specifics

Extensions: Extending through ink does nothing for me. Answer the responses, otherwise, it's like you never made the extension in the first place.

Evidence: I genuinely believe that the fabrication of evidence is what ruins debate as an academic activity. I will call for evidence after the round has ended only when there's a significant dispute throughout the round or when I'm asked explicitly in a speech to do so. If there is legitimate abuse of evidence, you're getting dropped with probably 0 speaks. Don't make me do this.

Speaker Points

- I don't mind giving a low-point win.

- Speaker Points will be based upon these things:

Clarity, Confidence, Content

UPDATED 12/27/2017

I've been out of debate for about 2 years now, so please go about 75% of your max-speed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I competed both locally and nationally in LD for 4 years in high school and was a policy debater at ASU for 1 year. I try to be as tab as possible, so run whatever you want. Debate can be a game or a forum or really what ever you want, just tell me how you want me to evaluate the round and I'll do so. Do what you want and debate well if you want my ballot.

I default to evaluating the round in order of theory, kritiks, case. That being said, I will evaluate the round in whatever order you tell me (as long as it's warranted!!!!). I'm totally willing to evaluate Ks before theory if you explain why I should.

For the love of all things holy, please impact back to something...anything. I will be very sad if you're making a great arg but not giving me any mechanism with which to weigh it. This means read and win a role of the ballot with a k, read voters on theory, defend your framework, etc.

Kritiks:Yes please! I ran a lot of Ks in high school and was a K debater in policy. I'm pretty well versed in baudrillard, antiblackness/afropess/wilderson, virillio, butler, marxism, psychoanalysis and fem rage so I feel comfortable evaluating most anything. PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THINGS HOLY AND GOOD IN THE WORLD, do not run a K in front of me if you do not know it--I won't intervene against you if you're winning it, but it will probably hurt your speaks and I will feel sad. If it's really dense, slow down a little for tags (go like 70% of your max speed). I'm a fan of performance ks as long as you give me a firm way to decide the round. Be clear on your ROB.

Theory/T: I'm fine with it, I'll vote on it. I have a pretty low threshold for theory--run it if you want. I'm fine with blippy theory arguments and if you frame them as an independent voter, I'll go for it. If you want to really win on theory there are a few things.

1. Please make the internal links to your voters clear in your standards.
2. Tell me--very coherently--what to do about RVIs (I don't have a default)
3. Please please don't make me intervene on theory. This means weigh between competing shells!!! If you weigh theory well, I will vote the way you want me to.

Extensions: Be clear and tell me why it matters. I don't need you to extend everything in your last speech, just show me where your winning and why it's more important than where you're losing. Honestly, if you're winning, and you know you're winning (like they dropped theory or didn't respond to/try to win under your rob) extend that and sit down. I'll vote on the highest level of debate in the easiest place.

Plans/CPs: go for it.

Other stuff: If you want to have a util/deon debate, that's fine with me. I was really into traditional LD when I first started and I know classical/traditional philosophy well. I'll evaluate whatever you give me. Just be clear as to why you're winning what.

Speaks: Probably on the higher end. I'll average 28. Be strategic and run cool stuff and run it well I'll give you higher speaks. If you're really offensive (anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, etc) I'm not opposed to giving you a 0.

Key to my ballot: Spend a simple 20 or 30 seconds at the end of your last speech explaining how I should break down the debate. Tell me where to go first and why you're winning there. Make it really simple for me to fill out my ballot. If you want to win, tell me why.

If you have any questions, ask me before the round or find me/message me on facebook.

You can run anything so long as you can explain your argument clearly and convince me. While I prefer a more traditional style of LD debate, if you run theory or a K and argue effectively I will flow your case. What's most important for me is seeing tangible impacts being linked back to your framework. Speak at a speed you are comfortable with. I can understand spreading.

I am what you would call "old school". I will entertain a progressive debate, but I much prefer a straight-up classic debate with value and criteria.

Contact info: jeff@immigrationissues.com

I coach debate so I am comfortable with most debate styles. I coach LD and am more familiar with LD, but also did policy in college and assist in coaching it now. I am qualified to judge both events.

Debate is fun. I value wit and humor. Debate is educational. I value scissor-sharp logic. Debate is a chance for high school students to make radical arguments for change. Don't be afraid to be yourself and express your opinion in any method you choose.

I like well-developed, persuasive and interesting cases with strong internal links and warrants and interesting and novel approaches to the resolution.

I believe that debate is, at its core, a thought experience. As a debater, you get to approach each debate round as your debate round. You get to set the rules. You get to debate what you find educational and valuable. To me that is the greatest thing about debate. To that extent, I like creative arguments and the arguments do not have to be conventional. However, you have to persuade me that there is a reason to vote for you, and you have to be prepared to justify that what you are debating is fair and educational to your opponent. To that extent, your opponent also gets to set the rules and play the game the way he or she wants to as well. That means that I am open to theory/topicality arguments on either side in order to set the ground rules for the debate.

I value cross-examination. It shows how a debater thinks on his or her feet, how well he or she understands the resolution and case and how well he or she uses rhetoric and logic. Use it effectively. I want you to answer your opponent's questions and not blow off cross ex. I flow cross-ex and consider statements made in CX as binding.

I will vote on textual arguments, Ks, policy arguments, theory, narratives and performative debate as long as you present an overall persuasive case.

In terms of layering, Theory/Topicality is evaluated as the first layer in debate. I have to first determine that the game is being played fairly before I consider the substance of the arguments. To that extent, I am open to theory arguments. If you are going to make theory arguments, please set forth an interpretation, standards and voters. Don't just claim your opponent is being unfair. If you are are arguing against the theory argument, please provide a counterinterpretation or show me that no counterinterpretation is necessary because you meet the interpretation and do not violate. I am open to RVI arguments and will evaluate those arguments, but only if you prove the theory is frivolous, time suck or strat suck. So RVIs will be considered but you have to show me that the theory argument, itself, was abusive. I will not consider an RVI just because you blip it out. Neg does not get reciprocity on RVIs.

After theory, I next evaluate ROTB, ROTJ and framework arguments. ROTB and ROTJ tells me that there is a role that I play that transcends the debate round. As such, I evaluate ROTB and ROTJ equally with other more traditional framework arguments. If you tell me what my role is, I will accept that as my role. That means the opponent has to come up with a counter ROTB, or show how he or she accesses your ROTB or how your ROTB is somehow bad or that your framework is superior. Same with arguments that you tell me are a priori, prior questions or decision rules. If you tell me there are, justify it, provide rationale. It is then up to your opponent to counter that. Your counter ROTB can be as simple as you should vote for the better debater, but don't just drop it because you assume that traditional framework (weighing case) comes first.

After framework, I will evaluate the contention level. Ks, narratives and performative arguments will be evaluated equally with other arguments but you have to provide the layering for me and tell me how to evaluate those arguments in the round.

Great weighing of arguments is your best route to high speaks. Don't just extend args. Please make sure it is clear to me how your arguments function in the round and how those arguments interact with the other side. I will evaluate all arguments that are not blatantly offensive. But it is up to you to tell my why those arguments are voters. The worst rounds are rounds where there is no weighing, or limited argument interaction. Please make the round clear to me. If an argument is dropped, don't just tell me it is dropped. Tell me why it matters. The more work you do telling me how arguments function in the round, the easier it will be to evaluate the round. I like extensions to be clearer than just a card name; you have to extend an argument, but I also value extensions that are highly efficient. Therefore, summarize your warrants and impacts in a clear and efficient way. Most importantly, please make sure you are very clear on how the argument functions in the round. And, don't go for everything. The best debaters are the ones who are able to succinctly crystalize the key issues in the round and collapse down to those key issues and tell me why they win the debate.

Kritiks: I love them and I love how they are progressing in debate. This includes narratives/performance arguments. Some of the best debates I have seen are good perfomative Kritiks. I will evaluate Ks equally with other positions. However, I have a few ground rules for Ks. First, if you are going to do a K, clearly explain your alt, ROTB and methodology and do not stray from it. It is a pet peeve when someone runs a K and then cannot justify it in CX or is snarky about answering questions about it in CX. If you are criticizing something, you have to be able to explain it under pressure. Second pet peeve: Your method/performance must go in the same direction as the K. If you are running Bifo (semiocapitalism) and then spread without giving your entire speech document to your opponent, I find that to be a performative contradiction. This will not end well for you. On a K explain whether you claim pre-fiat or post-fiat solvency and clearly how your discourse preempts other arguments in the round and weigh your discourse against your opponents framework. If you are doing a narrative or performative argument, you should be able to clearly articulate your methodology for your performance in the round. I know that I bring my own biases in the round, but I try my best to leave them at the door of the debate room and approach narratives and performative arguments with a blank slate. I appreciate hearing your voice in the round. If you are running fem rage or queer rage I want to hear it in the round. I want to hear your voice. That, to me, is the point of using the debate space for performance and narrative. So, I expect you to be able to clearly articulate your methodology and narrative and answer questions about how your opponent interacts with the methodology in the round. If you run a narrative but fumble over how that narrative and methodology works in the debate space, I find it less credible.

Policy arguments (Plans, CPs, DAs) are all evaluated. If you're running a DA, make sure the link debate and impacts are clear. Make sure you are doing good impact calculus on timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversability, etc. I will consider all impact scenarios. It is up to your opponent to tell me why those impact scenarios are outweighed.

Spikes, tricks and Other "Abusive" Arguments: I am not a fan of "tricks," spikes and blippy arguments and struggle to evaluate these strategies, so if your strategy is to go for underview blips and extensions of spikes and blips in your case that are barely on my flow to begin with, whether those arguments are philosophical or theoretical, I am going to have a lower threshold for responses. That means if your opponent has a halfway coherent response to them I am likely to drop the argument. I know that tricks are a new and sexy thing in debate. I just hate them.

Speed: I can flow speed. However, I like to be included in the email chain or pocketbox. Also if your analytics are not on the document, I will try my best to keep up, but don't blame me if you spread through them and I miss something. It is up to you to make the argument explicitly enough that I flow it and extend it. I like to review the evidence, so if you speed, I will follow along as I flow. Make sure the tags and card tags are are slightly slower and are clear. My issue is most often with enunciation, not actual speed, so please make sure you are enunciating as clearly as possible. No speed at the cost of understanding.

Points--(Note that these points have changed as of the ASU 2018 tournament)

30--You have a chance of winning this tournament and are one of the best debaters I have seen in a while.

29.0-29.5 - You are in the top 10% of the tournament and will definitely break.

28.5.-29.0 - You should break at this tournament.

28.0-28.5 - My default speaks. This is for a good and above average debater.

27.5-28.0 - You are average compared to other debaters in the tournament.

27.0-27.5 You are learning and have significant areas of improvement.

<27 This is the lowest I will go. You have done something unfair, offensive or unethical in the round.

I'm fine with speed as long as it's understandable.

I won't vote if you just tell me that something is, you need to tell me why.

If your argument doesn't make sense, I won't vote for you.

I judge the round based off of the framework that wins. Your impacts should make sense under your framework and in round you should take time to explain why your impacts matter under your framework. I'm willing to listen to progressive arguments but I am not well versed in most critical literature so you will need to explain what the argument is and why it means you should win the round. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask me in person before the round starts.

Public Forum

Experience:

Coached PF and LD for the past 5 years at Phoenix Country Day School in Arizona where I also teach economics. PF and LD competitor in 2003. I have judged Public Forum and LD at all levels over the past 15 years.

Bias:

I do believe that Public Forum should be accessible to all levels of judge experience, and I am less inclined to see arguments that serve to exclude the general public amicably. That being said, I hate intervening in rounds, so it is your opponents' job to explain why those arguments do not meet the spirit of public forum, are antithetical to the educational purpose of the event, and/or create levels of abuse that tip the balance towards one side or the other.

General Philosophy:

Tabula Rasa - I'll only intervene if something egregious or offensive occurs that an educator needs to step in and correct. Otherwise, I'll vote on the arguments in the round and weigh the impacts through the frameworks that are presented. If there are competing frameworks in the round, show me why you win through both of them.

I coach and teach at BASIS Mesa.

After coaching and watching debate for the past 4 years I have learned to evaluate whatever arguments and evidence are presented within the round. A lot of debaters, specifically in Arizona, for some reason have not learned the three-tier-structure of an argument: a claim, warrant, and impact. Whatever format you pursue and enjoy should have statements which are backed up with reasoning and why that is important under the framework within the round.

I like the line-by-line clash, and I default absent any arguments to a comparative worlds paradigm.

LARP

- too many debaters make weakly-linked impacts like extinction without explaining the specific chain of events which would lead to this. make these claims, just explain how nuclear war would occur. eg; economic failure causes Trump to attempt to divert attention by attacking North Korea and mutually assured destruction ensures nuclear war.

- probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc. are wonderful voters which are underutilized

Kritikal

- do not give a 4 minute overview and then go to the line-by-line and repeat yourself.

- answer the question "why is this important and what does the alternative do?" in your last speech

- identity politics is pretty cool, don't run stuff like "your identity doesn't matter" versus it

- deep down, I like Nietzsche

Tricks

- not going to pay attention, will probably start recording the round, and give it to our debaters to laugh at.

Theory/ Topicality

- frivolous theory is silly and if you have to ask "is this frivolous" it probably is.

- drop the argument > drop the debaters

- competing interps = reasonability

- no RVIs > RVIs

- education > fairness

- Topical Versions of the Affirmative are wonderful things that will make me feel like you deserve a high 29. Also, have carded definitions for your t interp.

Philosophy

- this is great but know what you're talking about.

- Hobbes> Locke

- make the framework a story, the cards should logically flow into one another

Traditional

- if you're good at traditional debate, these are my favorite rounds to watch-- the ones I give the most 30s in.

- i'll be honest, most are probably mediocre-leaning-bad in traditional debate. go for it in front of me.

- PROGRESSIVE KIDS: don't try spreading your opponent out of the round. that's un-educational especially because you can probably beat them talking at a conversational speed. run your progressive arguments, just don't do it to the point where your opponent cannot participate in debate.

Speaks

27 and Under: Extremely poor language use, bad at debate (learn from the round)

27.1-28: Evidence/support not clearly linked, arguments not substantial, poor language use, e.g. racist, sexist (whether intentional or not)

28-29.5: Arguments mostly substantial, evidence/support mostly linked to arguments, mostly clear use of language, e.g. I could understand your points, your contentions, values, etc. were clearly stated

29.5-30: Strong evidence/support provided, evidence clearly linked to arguments, substantial debate, strong, clear use of language

(Updated For Nat Quals 2025)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate, but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If it's a problem, I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I have read and judged plenty of K's on both the Aff and the Neg. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments/theory shells and the K have pre-fiat impacts, you should work to create a priority between them. You probably won't like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

To get my ballot:

Framework, impacts, links, always have your cards ready

To not get my ballot:

Drop points, talk over others, "if you don't buy that"

To get high speaker points:

Be confident in what you're saying

If your off-time roadmap is longer 30 seconds it's not off-time.

I do not flow CX.

If you think you can spread: enunciate.

I'd like to start out by stating that I used to have a paradigm and now it appears to have fled. Please know that that paradigm was much better and more comprehensive than this paradigm, but this will have to do for now. Don't let this paradigm be a reflection on me as a person.

PF

Rate- As long as you enunciate and I can understand you, have at it.

Content- Some philosophy and broad application is fine, but your arguments should be grounded in real life context and specifics.

I'm a teacher-coach, in that order. Your content and the flow matters but so does your clarity, organization, tone, and decorum. If both teams have sensational arguments and it's close I have no problem giving the win to who I think are the better speakers.

Consider myself a flay judge. The RFD is going to read more like a narrative and less like you won at argument Tetris.

Please have fun. I promise I will or, at the very least, if it's late and we're worn out, I'm still going to look like I'm having fun, and I'm going to do the best I can to give you something to work with and a clear reason for my decision.

I have been an LD/Speech judge for 3 years, I prefer traditional LD over kritiks/plans/counterplans. I'll let kritiks slide but once you get into plans/counterplans I am unable to provide you adequate feedback and judging. I'll try to understand and work with it but if you're spreading too, forget it.

Timing: Time yourself. Know the times for each section. Keep track of prep. I will only allow flex prep if you ask.

Spreading: if you don't keep me in the loop (share your AC/R NC/R etc.) and you're not the slightest bit intelligible it's on you. I will not try to hear everything and fill in the blanks for you. Do it and do it right or don't do it at all. Preferably though, don't spread.

Judging: Speaker points are based on behavior during the round, clarity of speech, and somewhat on following LD rules. I flow. I do not disclose unless told by the people in charge to do so. I will only offer feedback if asked. At the end of the round tell me who won. I judge based on the effectiveness of the case, ergo, uphold V/VC through your contentions and argue accordingly.

Overall: I'm rusty though because I haven't had time to help judge this semester, so beginning rounds please bear with me.

TLDR: I have judged LD for the past 3 years. I haven't been judging this past semester so bear with me at the start. Time yourself, don't spread, key voter issues at the end, don't be disrespectful. Have fun :)

I am a former student who did debate for four years in high school doing policy and lincoln douglas debate. Feel free to run anything you want, just make sure to be clear and concise with the arguments you are making and how you are responding to other arguments being made. Definitely tell me and your opponent what you plan on speaking before each time you speak. 

Speed

I am mostly fine with spreading. My issue is with the clarity of what you are saying, so make sure you do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Also make sure not to speak at your fastest possible at the beginning; speed up at you go along. If I find myself not being able to understand what you are saying, I will say clear once; any times mentioned recurringly will result in a loss of speaker points. When reading taglines, contentions, and authors names, please make sure to slow down and emphasize what you are saying as well. Clear and enthusiatic rhetoric will earn you higher speaker points.

Ettiquete 

Please be coureteous and respectful to your opponents. I will allow time for flashing over files and/or passing papers. I expect debaters to be managing their own time in round, including prep time. Only be asking direct questions to each other during cross examinations and do not attempt to intimidate the opponent. You may continue asking questions if the opponent does not have a sufficient response. Shaking each others hands is a sign of respect. Be sure to ask if the judge and the opponent is ready before speaking. Please do not use discriminatory language when debating. Good humor is always appreciated.

Framework 

Be sure to make convincing arguments showing why we should adopt a specfic ethical framework over the opponent's; make some kind of comparison and make sure i know these so I can evaluate each ethical paradigm. Be sure to weigh arguments and provide concrete evidence for everything you say. Ultimately how you weigh and crystallize the debate in correspondence to your framework is how I will be judging the winner of the debate round, so putting some time aside to go over why you are winning will be useful. Evaluating the criterion is very helpful, and will make it clear for me who is winning the debate, especially if you are running a more traditional debate. 

If you are running a progressive debate please be sure to be familiar with the literature you are reading; it takes away from the debate if you are reading arguments that go over your head. This ties in to the educational standpoint of the debate, which is also very important to address. Why are you reading these arguments and why should we listen? Again summarizing what you have established in round will be pertinent to the execution of your debate.

The Ballot

I will do my best to flow every argument you make. Be clear when you are cross-applying evidence or debating the line-by-line. The ballot will ultimately come from the arguments I see on the flow. What I will be looking for are impacts, and how each side weighed the impacts in round. It is not about how many impacts each side solves for, but about what each impact entails. Link debates will be important to weighing if impacts will happen, if a link is reasonably argued against and not sufficiently addressed, I will no longer weigh the impact of the argument. For the most part I am tabula rasa and will only weight what is being said in the round without any predisposition to any arguments, so logical argumentation is critical. 

Competition Experience:

Competed in Public Forum for 4 years and Lincoln Douglas in college for 1 year.

Flay Judge

Public Forum

I have not done any prep on the Sept/Oct topic so anything that you read will be new to me.

I am strongly against bringing spreading into the realm of public forum. I am fine with moderate speed. I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

I do not flow crossfire. Any concessions made during cross need to be brought up in the next speech.

First summary needs to extend defense. Please be sure to extend whatever voters here if you plan on extending them in final focus. Any unextended voters in summery are not guaranteed to be evaluated in final focus. Also, I am not going to do work for you. Please make sure that if you are dropping any arguments or making extensions that you tell here where and when its going to happen.

I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable.

Truth > Tech. I want quantifiable, weighable, terminal impacts. Please make my life easier and don't read cards without warrants and don't ready hypothetical impact scenarios with no concrete warranting behind the impacts.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

My name is Alec Lenamond. I am a 5th year Applied Mathematics major at the University of California, San Diego. I graduated from Citrus Valley High School in 2014 and have years of experience in Lincoln Douglas Debate, both on a local and national level.

tl;dr: (1) Speed okay (provided inclusion in an email chain), (2) advise against Theory and K's, (3) default probability over magnitude, and (4) pls debate the topic instead of just reading weak link chains.

Speed: I'll start by saying I have not judged much over the last few years so don't complain if I miss important information if you are spreading. I'm not opposed to speed, but I think there can still be great substantive debate at a normal conversational pace. If you do wish to spread, I would appreciate being included in an email chain or have the case(s) flashed to me.

Paradigm: I always evaluate framework first, but you need not win the framework debate to get my ballot. I resolve framework and then see which contentions/arguments win under that framework, so it is entirely possible to win under your opponent’s standard. In most cases, losing the framework debate will likely put you at somewhat of a disadvantage on the ballot, but I think there's great strategic potential in dropping framework to go all in on contentions (especially if you're negating).

As far as voting issues are concerned, winning the framework debate is not a voting issue. It is absolutely necessary to address framework in the last speech, but only as a means to tell me how to evaluate your voting issues. In other words, do not expect my ballot just because you won the framework debate.

Preferences: I generally prefer consequentialism because substantial arguments are quantifiable, making it easier to compare and debate the impact of the resolution. I am not opposed to means-based frameworks, but I feel they substantially limit the scope of the debate and, more often than not, confuse the shit out of me because debaters can't properly articulate what it means.

Absent any discussion on probability vs magnitude, I will default to the most probable impact. However, I highly encourage debaters to engage in a probability vs magnitude debate if relevant to the debate.

As a side note, I was never well-trained in Theory, Topicality, or RVIs so I will never make a decision on that. Still call out abuse if it's apparent but don't use theory as a strategy to win the debate.

Though I have some experience with K debates, I would rather debaters avoid this strategy as a whole and actually debate the substance of the resolution. If you run a K, please do not spread since I am not well-versed in literature. I also have a high threshold for voting for the K. Be extremely articulate when it comes to (1) the link to the AC, (2) the impact from voting for the AC, and (3) why the K comes before the standard offered by the AC. Most times, when I vote against a K it's because (3) is unclear or underdeveloped.

Prep Time: I generally prefer to give both debaters as much time as necessary to prepare for speeches, so long as both debaters have an equal claim to preparation. If taking an extra minute of prep results in a better quality debate, by all means take your time. However, I will not allow you to utilize unused prep time as additional speaking time. Flex prep is okay.

Evidence: I reserve the right to call for evidence after the round. I will only call for evidence if (a) it is significant in decision-making for the round or (b) if there is a dispute over what the evidence says. I will not call for evidence if I believe it to be falsified or misrepresentative of the author’s true intentions, as that is the debaters’ jobs to identify in the debate.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have on any other issue before/after the debate!

In short, the debate is about the resolution, not the participants in the round. Stay focused on upholding or clashing the resolution, as this is what I ultimately care about as a judge.

I will judge the round based on whether the Aff ultimately upholds the resolution through their V/vc, as weighed by empirical evidence, logical argumentation, philosophical theory, or other persuasive techniques, or whether the Neg has undermined these arguments through their clash. I don't have a preference between progressive or traditional styles, so long as the method of argumentation is done competently. Etiquette is a critical part of the debate space, and violations of general etiquette will not be tolerated in rounds I judge.

I prefer evidence-based arguments. Tempo can be fast, so long as the words are clearly enunciated. While I do not have a preference between progressive or traditional, in LD I find Utilitarianism is often poorly debated, and boring to judge as a result. (I will not vote an LD round down on Util, but if you're going to run it as a framework, it needs to be more than a placeholder philosophy.)

What my scoring means on a 30 point scale:

26- Significant improvement needed.

27-Slightly below average.

28-Slightly above average.

29-High quality performance.

30-Excellent performance.

***If you receive a 25 or below, you have done something that has been a noteworthy violation of rules or etiquette. I will not tolerate abusive behavior towards the topic, opponent, or debate space. (The exception to this is when ballot settings do not allow speaker point ties, thereby forcing low scores for the room.

I have done LD for one year in high school, finishing in Varsity. I have to say, i did well in debate.

That being said, I can keep up with speed - no obvious spreading. In terms of progressive, i can understand, but please go slow - I did value debate extensively, and have had some experience with Ks.

You must tell me why I should vote for you - always assume that I did not flow (although, I am flowing to the best of my ability)

I am paying attention on overall debating skill. After all, this is about debate and not about spreading and being confusing to your opponent. It's just not fair.

 I am a parent with 3 years of circuit judging experience. 

Speed is fine, be clear. If I have to say "clear" more than twice, I'll start docking speaks.

If you want to make me happy run policy-style args, though I'll vote on pretty much anything. Meaning, I'll vote on your non T Aff but you'll make me very sad. Everything else is fair game. I have a pretty high threshold for extensions. 

Don't be mean. Don't be racist, sexist, or a blatantly terrible person. 

I am a lay judge from Arizona with three years experience judging Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I base my decisions on the cases, cross examinations and rebuttals presented by the competitors. I do not finish cases, refute evidence or drop points for you. I rarely ask for evidence unless I suspect shenanigans. Please make your own, complete, cohesive case and clash with your opponent. Keep in mind, the farther you stretch your links, the more likely you are to lose me. I prefer elegance over cleverness.

I enjoy LD as the best forum to engage value-based debate without a presumed burden or the need for detailed plans. As such, I feel many of the progressive strategies of Policy debate often become unnecessary tricks and gimmicks in LD. I'll accept theory and kritics, but I still expect topical clash. A debater using a K accepts the burden that comes with an a priori discussion, handicapped by the lack of speaking time allowed in Policy. It's a gamble.

I accept speed. However, I find it lacks elegance and it's unpleasant. Please don't speak faster, just speak less. Economize. Using speed won't hurt your case, (unless I miss something), but it will hurt your speaker points.

My judging paradigm is whoever has the best argument supported by reasonable facts. I know you have to talk fast, but if you talk so fast that I can't understand you, that will lower your score.

I am relatively to judging speech and debate - it's now my second year, but I have judged Mock Trial competitions for several years and I have been a trial attorney for the past 20 years, so I know something about presenting a well supported argument. I have done LD, PF and Speech - I usually fill in wherever needed and I generally learn something new at each tournament.

I appreciate courtesy to your opponents, but don't mind if you are confident, even a little bit cocky when presenting your argument. Rudeness will not fly, but confidence definitely helps.

Working on getting better at my flow.

Try to make your questions on crossX make sense and not just what you have prepared. Listen to the arguments your opponents have made and respond accordingly.

I enjoy judging these competitions and appreciate learning from the students. Good luck!

General

I competed in VLD for Brophy in High School for four years. I did some national circuit debate, and I broke at Harvard once. Currently, I do British Parliamentary Debate at USC. In general, I'm fine with anything as long as it's justified.

Speed

I can handle some speed. Clarity is key, but there is a certain point at which no level of clarity can make your speed comprehensible. I'll shout speed if necessary.

Theory

I default to drop the arg, competing interps, and no rvis. Feel free to define and warrant your own parameters.

Kritiks

Go for it. I tend to think the links are weak and the alts easily permed though. Also, philosophy jargon is not a warrant.

Weighing

Do it.

Extension

Can be short, but I need a link, warrant, and impact.

Speaks

I evaluate based on persuasive/rhetorical ability.

25 is a terrible/problematic speaker

27.5 is an average speaker

30 is a perfect speaker

Rosemary Muldoon

Lincoln/Douglas Debate Paradigm

Salpointe Catholic High School

My name is Rosemary Muldoon and I am a judge for Salpointe Catholic High School in Tucson, Arizona.  My daughter has competed on Lincoln/Douglas Debate for the past two years, and I have judged for the 2015 - 2016 School Year.  For my professional career I am a Realtor and Associate Broker.  While this isn’t debate it has given me the experiences of understanding argument and the art of negotiation.

What you should know about me as a judge

While this year is the first year I have judged, I have been involved in many pre-elim rounds and outrounds on the Arizona Circuit.  I have judged at four tournaments, judging an average of six debates at each tournament.  I understand the process of Lincoln/Douglas Debate and how it’s done.

Progressive Debate vs. Traditional Debate

I prefer traditional debate but am open to progressive argumentation when it’s really well explained.  If you are choosing to run cases that include theory, counterplans, kritiks, Disadvantages, etc, understand you have the burden of making them super clear to me if you want me to evaluate them.  The safest route is to have a Lincoln/Douglas Debate that debates framework and contentions.  That the type of debate that I prefer to hear.  Regardless of what kind of debate you choose to have I highly encourage all debaters to have voter issues in their last speech.  Explain to me where you believe you are winning on the debate.  If I agree that you are ahead there, you’ll likely get my vote.

Speed

You can read at a moderate speed.  I am not interested in hearing a debater ‘spread’ their argument.  Read quickly, but not more than a little quicker than conversational speed.

Flow

I flow the debate but only take down taglines and authors.  After that I’m listening to the card and writing down anything from it I hear that I feel is significant.  The best way to help my flow is signpost before the speech and during the speech.  Tell me exactly where I should be putting things.  The more work you do for me, the easier it is to get my vote.

My Ballot

My ballot comes from the flow and the impacts that come behind it.  Again, the best way to help with this is to make a big deal out of voter issues.  The best debaters take the debate out of my hands and make it clear as day what happened in round.  Where debaters get frustrated is when they don’t extrapolate what happened in the debate, leaving their judge to do the thinking for them.

Background: 4 years LD at Brophy College Prep in Phoenix, AZ
Graduated 2016

krishnamuruganaz@gmail.com for your email chains

Truthfully, I think I'm basically a fossil in this community. I graduated years ago and don't really compete in college. I judge maybe two tournaments out of the year at most. At this point, my paradigm has become a series of opinions about debate that maybe not alot of people share.

Anyways, first things first: DONT SHAKE MY HAND

I honestly hate when people do that.

Actual paradigm stuff:

Personally, I don't think the judge is an educator. Really, all I'm contractually obligated to do is listen to you speak for an hour and then sign a ballot. I'm a glorified scoreboard. Any educating I do occurs after I sign and submit the ballot. That basically means I'm gonna evaluate your arguments as points. Whether or not you score higher points depend on if you link to your framework well and have solid impacts. If have a solid story from why I care about your framework to why that means I vote for you, then I'll probably vote for you. I'm pretty good at understanding arguments, but dontd assume I'll get everything. If you don't explain your argument clearly, I'll be sad. I really just don't wanna think. If I don't have to think, I'll like you more.

Speed is maybe fine? Given a speech doc, I can keep up easy. But I'm an ancient 20 something years old now and I have 0 incentive to be able to keep up with your speed now

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kritiks are cool. Run your crazy shit, just don't read any offensive stuff.

Theory is dumb but I'll vote on it. That being said, I'm of the opinion that theory as it's run now is more abusive as opposed to actually checking abuse. If I can find an excuse not to vote on theory, I won't vote on theory. I default to reasonability and RVIs

PICs are stupid but honestly kinda funny to listen to. I'll totally vote on one with no regrets.

Tricks are bad for debate. Fuck you if you read these.

If I didn't mention something, just assume I'm cool with it.

Speaks:

25-26: not great, missing extensions, super unclear, probably undercovered a bunch, made me sad because it doesn't seem like you care about the activity

26-27: same as the above except you didn't make me sad because you like debate and it's obvious you're trying

27-28: a few mistakes here and there but good extensions and a clear understanding of what arguments you were going for. Most people probably end up here

28-29: quality extensions and some really interesting arguments. Tbh probably the same as 27-28 except I thought your case was cool and unique

29-30: I think you're gonna go far in the tournament. Wrapped up everything neatly in a bow for me and I don't have to think at all. also probably gets a smiley face on your ballot

The best debates are those in which both sides ask good questions.

I've judged three years of LD debate as a parent of an LD debater. I work in investment real estate while my formal education is in engineering. My school affiliation is Arizona College Preparatory - Erie Campus.

I still consider myself a lay judge as I'm not a prior debater.

My preferences:

Keep it under 300 words per minute. I won't remind you in round or during your speech to slow down.

I'm fine with plans or counter-plans, but they must have solvency.

Topicality is big.

I will flow k's, but I'm not a fan of them.

I prefer a utilitarian mechanism.

I recommend signposting throughout the debate, providing clear connections to the framework/contentions.

When presenting offense, present a big picture road-map before you get into any details.

I strongly recommend presenting key voters. List weighing mechanisms along with each.

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

General:

I debated policy 4 years in high school along with a brief stint with LD in my senior year, and I'm in my fourth year of college debate at ASU. For whatever reasons I've ended up judging LD more than policy, so I'm pretty comfortable with either event.

For Policy:

Sorry, but because I haven't been involved in highschool policy debate much this year, you shouldn't expect me to have as much specific knowledge background on the topic as you do. Basically, don't expect me to go into the round knowing topic specific acronyms, but I should catch on quickly enough. On some specific args:

K is fine on the aff or neg. I'll vote for substantive framework arguments, but I generally won't find procedurals very persuasive.

I'll evaluate theory like other arguments, and I'm willing to vote for theory if you've given me a reason to.

For LD:

I am OK with either traditional or progressive LD, although outside of solid abuse I tend to lean progressive in theory debates. Ks, speed, DAs and so on should all be fine.

Overall in any event I just want you to run what you want to run and are comfortable with.

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

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

LD/PF: If you are a typical circuit debater, do us both a favor and strike me. If, however, you run cogent, warranted, impacted, and meaningful arguments that you understand, I'm your judge. I can flow/understand moderately fast debate, so that's not an issue as long as your diction is clear. Theory arguments should be a rare exception in rounds and only if one side does something so egregious (like having a standard that the other side has no way of accessing) that the debate can't logically proceed in a fair manner. I will not vote on offensive theory and if your opponent runs an education voter against you if you do, I'll vote for your opponent. I'm not a solely "traditional" judge in the sense that I'm fine with Ks and alternative debating, and I believe that the value/criterion structure muddles more rounds than it clears up but I'm OK with it and most of the rounds I judge have V/Cs in them.

Congress: I was a legislative staffer in the US House of Representatives and believe that Congressional Debate should be a good training ground for future public servants. Thus, I take the event seriously and consider it more of a debate than a speech event. I flow and I look for clash, and both analytical and empirical warrants. It's about quality of presentation over quantity for me, so don't feel obligated to get in the maximum number of speeches unless they're good. Decorum, integrity, and leadership are important to your gaining high ranking on my ballot.

My debate experience is '80's and early '90's policy (fast and lots of post-fiat impx; this was before the Kritik days, the only pre-fiat debates were on topicality and conditionality). I do like kritical debate, though and mention the policy experience so you know I'm up for just about anything - debaters create debate. There's no special category of arguments labeled "THEORY" with a bunch of skulls and crossbones warning debaters away - if you're in a debate talking about debate, you're in a theory debate. If you're going to do it, please make sense and consider the impacts outside of the room we're in. )

LD has the advantage of a well-established expectation of impact calculus that revolves around framework debates - I like that. Don't bother debating identical frameworks, though, because I get enough of that in local politics.

My pet peeve is the unbelievable amount of time wasted "flashing" or creating e-mail chains for evidence sharing. It should not take an additional 5 minutes to flash after 1 minute prep. If you can't figure it out, debate on paper. (The strategy is usually for both debaters to be so slow that I can't hold it against anyone in particular. This strategy results in an extremely cranky judge reticent to hand out speaker points to anyone.)

Finally, I have a lot of respect for this activity and I believe the way we respect it is to show respect to one another. I have little to no tolerance for rudeness, condescension, or derisiveness. Be nice. Be kind.

I did PF all four years of high school, but have found myself able to understand LD Rounds.

I'm fine with speed, but not with spreading. Though, I am not super well-versed in K's or theories, I can run with them so long as they are well-argued.

I expect you to time your own speeches and be aware of the structure of the round, however I will cross-time prep. When it comes to sharing evidence, it does not count as prep while you are reading the card, but the moment pen goes to paper or I think you've been taking too much time for evidence, prep time starts.

Please be clear in reading tags and evidence sources/titles –I need to be able to refer to evidence!

Otherwise, I judge rounds in the ways you tell me, I'm pretty adaptable.

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

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

· I’m not a former debater.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD Paradigm:

For Lincoln-Douglas debate, I have three major focuses that all debaters should adhere to following standard LD protocol.

First, I am straightforward framework judge. I will keep a close record of contentions, sources (list dates of source publication during speeches), and counterarguments of each side. If two cards clash, I will value what is most recent (hence why dates matter) and most relevant to the debate topic. Pointing out logical fallacies in your opponent's argument while crafting a solid logical argument is key to winning framework. Very important: I prefer to stick to the resolution and will therefore discount meta-debate arguments.

Second, I will look for a strong ethical argument regarding each side's value and criterion. Generally by the second speech for each side, I want consensus on all definitions given in the round as well as a reason why I should choose one value over another. Bonus points will be observed for the debaters who can absorb their opponent's value into their own framework.

Third, be clear on voter issues in the final speeches. Make sure your proposed outcomes are realistic and logical. Since there is no time for rebuttals on final speeches, I will weigh the quality of closing statements.

Other notes:

I have a pretty fast ear and I do not mind if speeches are delivered quickly as long as I can understand them. As a general rule, I recommend speaking louder if you also wish to speak faster. Diction is very important.

Use cross-examination time wisely. Try to minimize clarification questions since this time should be reserved for poking holes in your opponent's logic. Any trading of cards is permitted during prep time, but taking notes on the cards will be on the clock!

I am a coach for a large team.

I'm fine with both progressive and traditional debate but prefer traditional V/C and I'm usually not a fan of counterplans in LD. Either way, be sure to make your arguments and be clear. I won't make them for you and guess at what your point was supposed to be. Make all impacts clear. List your voting issues. If you run a K, it should tie to the resolution. I will flow whatever you put out there during the debate.

Enunciate if you're going to spread. Spreading is a tool. If you can't make it work in your favor (and most debaters cannot) then don't use it. If I can't understand what you're saying then I can't evaluate it and I won't try.

I'm fine with aggressive debaters. I am not okay with rudeness. It will count against you mostly because it makes you look insecure in your arguments. Your arguments should speak for themselves. If they can't and you try to overcome lousy arguments with pettiness and eye rolling then prepare to lose.

Effective cross-x counts with me. Ask good questions. Answer questions effectively. Don't spend the entire time arguing over cards. A pet peeve of mine is debaters making statements or arguments during cross instead of asking questions.

SternCH@nv.ccsd.net

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It is not asking the question of what specific action must be taken, that's policy, what it is asking is for us to justify an action to be taken, or arrival at a particular state of existence. I HIGHLY value topical debate, (I mean really highly, like really, really highly). I start with the idea that role of the ballot is to determine who best debates the topic, I like it to remain there, but am open to having that change. I highly (and I cannot stress this enough) value topical debate. I value clarity in the round, and giving me a clear direction as to why you win gives me a roadmap that I can use to find your winning argument, use that time to wrap things up at the end of the round.

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. In my mind, Theory is there to check abusive arguments and tactics, don't make it frivolous please. The worst offender of this in my mind is disclosure theory. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense," tell me why that argument fails to hold water.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Link to JudgePhilosophies

Tldr; Debate is first and foremost an educational experience that needs to be accessible and accommodating to all.

General Preferences: Email chain me at ktotz173@gmail.com before you give your speech please and thank you. I’m fine with flex prep as long as everyone else in the room is cool with it. Speed is fine but debate is still an activity about communicating so please for the love of all that is holy, enunciate and differentiate your tone. Also slow down on analytics ESPECIALLY if they aren’t on the doc. If you just give me 7 minutes of monotone spread I will not be happy. I am doing my best but I can only type so fast. Most importantly, debate is a learning experience first and foremost, I don’t appreciate anyone taking away learning opportunities just for a win. Let me know if you have specific questions on this paradigm, debate, or just life in general before the round starts! Good luck and debate well.

T: - new and improved! Legitimate theory is always cool, friv theory is cool with me as long as it doesn’t take away from anyone’s learning. This means I’m not down for frivolous theory against a kid who has never once encountered theory, that’s not cool. Topicality/framework against K’s, particularly debate space K’s, is really iffy to vote on for me, I will 100% always prefer that you actually engage the meat of the K. Topicality and framework against pretty much anything else is cool with me, but again my threshold for voting on it is pretty high if it’s against anything other than a topical version of the aff. In general, I tend towards standards of accessible education, competing interpretations, and portable skills.

K’s: - love a good k still!! Specific links are always very important; I LOVE a great link story! Perms of K’s need to be very well explained and I need to walk away knowing what the perm world would look like pretty clearly. This means that if you’re deciding between 3 perms with no explanation and 1 really good, well-explained perm, you should always go for the one perm response in front of me. I love a good K aff, but be ready to defend it on the framework and the body level of the K. Debate space K’s will always come before T, all other types of K’s I’m willing to hear debate about which comes first but I tend towards K unless there’s some really great accessible education claims out of the T.

CPs: - nice!!! But please give really good solvency advocates, especially on PICs. Down for PICs, but also down for PIC theory. Get creative with perms but, like with K perms, you need to give me a brief explanation of what the perm world would look like if you want me to vote on it.

DAs: Down, specific link chains are really important to me, as are specific link beginnings. I’m over the ‘any international change will lead to nuke war’ arguments, but I’m very down for specific analysis on why a particular action triggers the DA. The more chains in the link, the less likely I am to buy that the DA turns case.

Framing: In general, utilitarianism and philosophy are kind of fake arguments and I’ll tend to vote on K responses to those arguments, but I do still enjoy a good phil v. phil debate and can follow most phil as long as it’s clearly articulated outside of case.

look at Maanik Chotalla's because it's basically identical as his but his is written better than I would even try to write it:
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=18920

Flow judge.

Debated 4 years of LD in High School.

If it makes logical sense and you defend it properly it will work. Try anything on me as long as I understand it. Spreading can be done, but you better make sure I understand every piece of your argument or else we are going to have a problem. (If you can debate without spreading, I'm going to like you more)

Also for the love of god weigh your arguments. If at the end of the day person A has 3 arguments and person B has 1 argument, person A wins because no one has told me why their argument matters.

Here's a tip: Weigh your shit

1st layer of weighing:

Ends-based impact

Magnitude

Scope (# of people affected)

Intensity (how much it affects people)

Duration (how often it happens)

Probability

Time frame (when impact starts)

Reversibility (extinction=non reversible, ecological damage=somewhat reversible)

2nd layer:

“Why does magnitude matter more than probability?”

Write some analytic reasons why a is better than b

Link your framework in here

Boom now person B can weigh his/her nuclear destruction argument and tell me why it destroys person A's 3 arguments on shear magnitude.

PLEASE WEIGH I LITERALLY TELL EVERY DEBATER TO WEIGH BEFORE THE ROUND BUT EVERYONE FORGETS BY THE 2NR OR 2AR LMFAO

Here's another tip: USE YOUR FRAMEWORK and if you've lost the FW debate USE YOUR OPPONENTS FRAMEWORK

Tell me why you are winning under your framework, winning your framework, or even if you lost the framework, why you are still winning under their framework.

I know this may not be applicable to all rounds, if the frameworks are directly opposed to each other. But give it a shot.

Here's another another tip: Be chill about it

Debate is fun. If you aren't having fun roasting your opponent, or relishing in getting roasted by your opponent why you out here debating bro lol. Keep it real.

pro tip: Ask for my flow papers, and take pictures of them

You can understand how I judged the round, and where you failed or succeeded in convincing me.

Former coach at Copper Hills High School in West Jordan, Utah.

I want to do as little work for your argument as I have to. If you're going to go fast, I want to be on the email chain. Mac.walker24@gmail.com. There is no argument that I won't vote for as long as you explain it well. If you have any specific questions before the round about my preferences, please don't be afraid to reach out to me and ask.

Coaching for 23 years and taught debate for same amount of time. Holistic judge/flow judge, but want CLASH on both sides. I am okay with speed, but should not deplinish your arguments-those come first. Some progressive is okay, don't like Plans or Counter Plans-those need to stay in CX.

This is still value debate so would like to see value criterion used and supported.

K's okay, not optimal, but will listen to them.

Standing during debate is a must-lazy if you don't.

I am a relatively new judge. I prefer debaters to speak slowly and clearly. I do not care for spreading. I appreciate roadmaps and signposting.

As you can see from my (not so) substantial list of judging experience below, I am not very experienced compared to some other judges. I recently started judging LD debates and enjoy hearing well-formulated arguments delivered in a poised manner.

I am a condensed matter physicist, which I actively practice for my job. I am not a former debater nor coach, but I am educated and logical, so appeal to my desire for clear, logical and concise arguments with supporting evidence to convince me of your side. I will not be swayed by emotional appeals or disparaging remarks of your opponent's arguments. Rather, it will likely work against you. Just "stick to the facts" and let your arguments stand on their own.

I do not want to see or hear spreading. Even in topics with which I am an expert, I do not like to hear people attempt to speed-talk. If I want to hear someone speak like an auctioneer, I will go to an auction (I won't). I would rather hear a few good arguments that are clear and cogent than many arguments that I cannot understand. Whenever I hear someone spreading, I will assume that he/she is trying to skim over topics or information due to lack of understanding. That will not help your score.

Be sure to relax and enjoy your debate!

I teach speech and debate, and I currently serve as a coach for Park City High School. I have been involved as a parent, a judge and a coach since 2015. I enter each round with respect and admiration for all of you, because you have chosen to engage in important conversations within this educational space.

If you want to read theory, please strike me.

In-round Preferences:

I love comparative weighing throughout the round.

The language you use during round is important. Please refrain from making arguments that contain language that might be hurtful to marginalized groups.

A good, robust cross is always appreciated, and I love a healthy clash, as long as it is respectful.

You know the rest - convince me that your arguments are better and you will pick-up my ballot.

My email is awilliams@pcschools.us

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

Please look at the legend Austin Wang's paradigm. Everything there applies for me as well: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=20251

Background

I debated PF at Saratoga High School in California and capitained LD my senior year. I now study finance with minors in computer science and economics at Indiana University.

PF-

Framework

I will evaluate these first and will default to a utilitarian calculus unless it is argued otherwise. If you are presenting another framework, please be prepared to warrant it.

Evidence

Paraphrasing is okay as long as the evidence is used in context. I will hold you to a high standard in that regard. You should also present enough of a source citation that I can locate the evidence. I find dates to be particularly important. I will call for cards if I believe that they may be incorrectly cut.

Arguments

Creative and obscure arguments are encouraged as long as they are well-warranted. I will vote on mostly everything and enjoy seeing these arguments read.

Speaker Points

My average will be 27.5. Speaker points will be assigned based on the content of your speeches in addition to your presentation. Content includes but is not limited to your strategy, organization, and analysis.

Speed

You can go as fast as you would like as long as you are clear. If I have a problem with this, I will let you know twice before lowering your speaker points. Keep the nature of the specific tournament in mind.

Weighing

This is very important, especially during the final focus. Weighing also applies to evidence. If there are two contradictory pieces of evidence presented by both teams, explain to me why I should prefer your evidence. If weighing isn't done, I will have no choice but to intervene.

Roadmaps/Signposting

Signposting is required. Roadmaps are helpful but not necessary.

Fiat/Plans

You must be able to defend the probability of your advocacy occurring in the real world. If you choose to focus on a specific part of the resolution, you must be able to explain why that specific part is the most likely outcome of the resolution.

Summary/Final Focus

Any offense you go for in the final focus (including turns) should first be in the summary. Turns that are extended in the final focuses but not in the summary will be evaluated as defense but won’t be considered a voting issue.

RFDs

Please feel free to ask me any questions you have regarding my decision or the round.

LD-

Pref Shortcut:
Stock/LARP- 1
Framework/Phil: 1
Theory: 3
K: 3
Tricks: 4 (strike me if you are a tricks debater)

Additional notes

Speed: I personally enjoy slower, traditional rounds but I also don't mind speed. I will say "slow" or "clear" thrice before I stop flowing. Slow down when explaining philosophy.

Ks: Don’t assume that I already know all of the literature behind it.

Theory: I will vote on it as long as it’s reasonable. Make sure to weigh between different theory standards.

CP/DA: Feel free to read any CP or DA that you like. I really enjoy substance debates.

Other: I won't be flowing cx except to fix/clarify content from earlier on. Make sure to tell me in the last speeches what I should be voting on. Particularly at tournaments with both a strong mix of traditional and progressive debaters, negative debaters should attempt to adapt to the affirmative style. This means that even if you're reading progressive arguments, you should explain it so that traditional debaters are not excluded from the debate space.

Questions- If you have any questions before, during, or after a tournament, I would be happy to speak with you. Feel free to reach out to me through email at syaghoob@iu.edu or by calling/texting me at (408)707-2069.

I am a parent judge with no personal debate experience. However, this is my 3rd year judging so I know the way things work. I am ok with fast talking and can handle any argument as long as you make yourself clear and preface anything unusual with a quick explanation.

I expect debaters to be civil and respectful throughout the round.  

Speaking: 1) speak with clarity, please refrain from spreading; 2) after saying "clear" three times, I will dock points if I still cannot understand; 3) if I cannot understand what you are saying I will not flow; 

Debate style: I am open to all types of arguments but prefer traditional debate. 

If you have specific questions, we can discuss before round.