About Me

I am a 4th year Public Forum debater who has competed at multiple NSDA National Tournaments, GFCA State Tournaments, and TOC qualifiers. Personal interests include sports, music, art, cinema, and the outdoors.

How I Evaluate the Round

I evaluate the round based solely on the flow, with speaking being evaluated completely separately. Since I am evaluating on the flow, I prefer teams to utilize tactics such as the line-by-line and signposting, as well as the off-time-roadmap. Please, however, do not give a worthless off-time-roadmap just to tell me that you will be rebutting the other team's case. Lastly, I am a big fan of overviews, frameworks, and other topical analysis to help narrow the debate a provide a mechanism for me to weigh the round.

Speaking Preferences

My main speaking preference is definitely CLARITY. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you, and I vote off the flow. Feel free to speak as fast as you'd like, but ideologically I'm opposed to spreading in Public Forum or Lincoln Douglas, and will probably dock your speaks for such. First speakers, make it a point to have your constructive sound as perfected and refined as possible, as it is effectively the only speech in the round you have the opportunity to prepare outside the round. Second speakers, make it a priority to give a good final focus, as I consider that to be the speech where rounds, particularly those that I am evaluating, are most often won or lost.

I am a former high school debater that has dabbled in everything. I’ve been judging for the past six years and have judged everything, but policy. I recently graduated with a degree in Anthropology, with a focus on cultural anthropology. I’m a pretty typical PF judge and will vote for the team with the most compelling argument, however, I do like a solid framework. As far as cross goes, I don’t care if you sit or stand—whatever is most comfortable for you works for me. I don’t like when you address me during cross because I feel like you should be focused on your opponents instead. My BIGGIE is DO NOT SPREAD. If you are going too fast, I will not flow the round and drop you. This is PF, not policy. I have an extensive speech background and will be pretty merciless when it comes to speaker points. Other than that, remember to be respectful during the debate. Things can get pretty heated sometimes, but that is no excuse for rudeness. If you say things during the round that that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you immediately. Let’s be kind to one another and remember to have fun! I look forward to hearing some good debates!

Hey! I debated throughout high school, competing in both PF and LD, and did policy at Emory for a year. If there are any parts of this that need further clarification, feel free to email me before round (sabrinacallahan18@gmail.com) or ask me in person before the round starts. Enjoy!

General:

- Do not be blatantly offensive in round. Racism, sexism, ableism, etc. are unacceptable and are a bad norm for debate and life in general. This can cost you speaks or the round in general.

- Go with the style of debate that makes you most comfortable. At the end of the day, the debate round is yours and it is not within my jurisdiction to impose a certain style on anybody for the sake of one round. Regardless of what you choose to read, just focus on the flow because that’s what I’ll be doing as a judge. I’ll flow whatever you choose to read as long as I can understand what you’re saying. With that being said, make sure to slow down for tag lines and keep your spreading intelligible.

- Trigger warnings do matter.

- Doing a lot of weighing between arguments is always a plus.

- I haven’t read lit on this topic, so keep this in mind and don’t assume I’ll know what a specific card is or what certain topic related lingo means.

- While I recognize that debate is a game, make sure to keep this an educational space where positive norms prevail. This seems pretty obvious, but just be aware of the importance of being a decent person in (and out) round. For instance, if you’re a varsity going against a novice debating for the first time, don’t absolutely destroy them for your own pleasure.

- I’m trying to work on this, but I tend to not flow during CX, so if there’s anything super important that you want me to write down, emphasize this.

- Quality over quantity of arguments.

Frameworks:

- I used to not be a huge fan of framework debate, but increasingly this has changed and I tend to really pay attention to this element of the flow when making my decision, so make sure to keep the framework debate as clean as possible or else it makes it more ambiguous on my end to evaluate the round since it forces me to do some judge intervention in the sense that I then have to decide what mechanism to evaluate the round. I like to see framework clash from the beginning of the round, rather than just being thrown into the last 30 seconds of a rebuttal. Whether this applies to lay rounds or more technical rounds, establishing your framework from the beginning makes me more likely to vote for you.

Lay debate:

- People often shame lay debate, but I think it’s cool and is probably the type of debate that translates best into the real world. Don’t feel that you have to read anything besides this if you aren’t comfortable with it for the sake of impressing anybody in round. I’ll still flow the round as I would any other round, so things such as weighing, analytics, line by line, etcetera do matter. Also, no matter what you do, please don’t go new in the 2NR/2AR (please). I’ll just sit there awkwardly because I can’t evaluate anything.

K’s:

- I’m a huge fan of these so I’m always down for these kinds of rounds. However, just saying that “capitalism, the patriarchy, etc” are bad is not enough to win the round. Have strong and specific links or else the K means nothing to me.

- Concrete alts have more value than ones that just advocate for a pure rejection of said issue, even though I recognize that some Ks make arguments as to why this is uniquely bad and I am open to them.

- Don’t just respond to a K by saying “perm” with no cards or analytics to support it. This does little for all parties involved in the round.

- Don’t assume that either myself or your opponent have read the literature you used. Explaining your arguments will always be a safer option than not.

- Have an ROB/ROJ that is as clear as you can possibly make it.

- Most important of all- be familiar with what you’re reading.

Theory/ Tricks:

- On the K vs theory debate, make sure your shells are calling out legitimate abuse and explain why this abuse impedes the pedagogical benefits of the K. A fair amount of weighing must be done here, or else the round just gets super messy on both ends. I don’t assume that one is higher than the other, but if theory is read specifically against a K, I will evaluate theory as an indict to the K if no weighing arguments are made.

- If you read a shell, make sure you have all parts of the shell and don’t assume that certain things are implied (ie. that education and fairness are voters) or else it’ll be highly likely that you’ll lose on it.

- Condo is a good norm

- Not a huge fan of reasonability, so it’ll take good justifications to get me to buy this argument.

- I’m more inclined to drop the arg than to drop the debater, though this is subject to change depending on the circumstance.

- Have specific interps (ex: “they must do x” instead of “they didn’t do x”) or else you don’t give your opponent a legitimate way to engage with the shell and you force them to spend time trying to dodge abuse, rather than just making it very clear what you interpret to be a good norm for debate. In the case that your opponent has a super blippy interp, I think it’s totally valid to call this out as abusive.

- I don’t read them myself, but I think tricks are cool so have at it if this is your thing. If you make me smile with your creativity, I’ll award you with higher speaks.

Topicality:

- I’m also a huge fan of this kind of debate, so feel free to go for this.

- Absent sources it makes it impossible for what you’re reading to have any validity.

- Assume I’ll evaluate the round through competing interps

Disclosure:

- I’m not the biggest fan of it, but I also don’t really care enough to be repulsed by it. However, I do think that debaters from big schools are the primary beneficiaries from this and will be more inclined to support arguments against it.

Speaks:

- I don’t have a formulaic way of assessing how many speaks I’ll give you, but unless you’re super rude in round or make a fatal mistake, I’m generous with speaks (average range of 28-29.5).

PF Paradigm:

- I spent most of high school doing PF, so I guess technically speaking this is the category I’m most familiar with, even though I haven’t sat through a PF round in a while. I’ll flow the round as I would any other round, except I’ll focus more on evidence since it’s a bigger component of PF than it is in other categories. However, I don’t want to sit through an hour of just four people screaming at each other about which card is more important. Focus on the strength of arguments and the warrants behind them.

Policy paradigm:

- To be completely honest, I’m new to policy and am not too familiar with all of the nuances of it. I’ll flow the round to the best of my abilities, but don’t assume that I will know all of your jargon, even though I think LD has somewhat exposed me to a lot of concepts in policy. Be organized and tell me how to evaluate the round. I’ll apply most of the ways from how I evaluate other rounds into policy, so if you have any specific questions don’t be afraid to ask before the round starts to avoid any confusion.

I believe excellence in debating is the sum of three factors; 1) an organized presentation of compelling research, 2) refuting your opponent’s research, and 3) your presentation style. The rounds I judge will be decided on these factors.

To be successful in Factor #3, consider the following:

a) Do not talk fast (spreading). If you were to do so in a professional debate, your audience will likely get lost and you may lose any leverage over your opponent because your research was not understood by your audience;

b) Tell me what you are about to tell me.  For example, if you are about to tell me your Value, say, "my value is..."  for your Criterion, say, "my criterion is..." and for your contentions, say, "my first contention is...." "my second contention is..." etc.  If you don't do this, I may not recognize what you are saying as any of these things and then I can't give you credit for these aspects of debate.  Likewise, when you are refuting an opponent's contention, it would be beneficial to start by saying something like, "Regarding my opponent's first contention..." so that it is clear to me that you have addressed that contention.

c) Manage your time.  If you are speaking when a timer expires, you may finish your sentence but not start a new one.  Recall that my first factor for excellence in debating is being "organized."  Having rehearsed your talk will ensure that you can complete it in the allocated time.  To go over your time suggests a lack of preparation.  Note that my first factor also states "compelling research."  If you find that any section of your talk slightly exceeds your time allotment, you might consider eliminating parts of the talk that are not "compelling."

d) Engage your audience.  This doesn't mean you should talk loud. Talk at a volume appropriate for your audience to hear you.  Don't yell at your audience.  Consider videotaping yourself giving your talk and look for anything you see yourself doing that you think may be annoying to your audience, suggest that you don't know your material or that you aren't confident about what you are saying.  For example, these things could be considered annoying; if you play with your hair, say "um" a lot, rock back and forth or never look at your audience.  Consider making modifications to your presentation style that will help engage your audience and sell your message.

I have no preference for whether you sit or stand. 

I would like the AFF seated to my left and the NEG seated to my right.

I like a traditional structure of debate the most but if your case calls for something different then use it. Make sure I know the road map of your argument.

Spreading is fine but if you start mumbling I won't be able to judge you.

I like clash but overall upholding your case is more important to me.

Last updated pre-NDT (3/26/24).

First-year coach for Georgetown (college) and Sidwell Friends (high school). Competed in policy debate for Georgetown University for 4 years. Did local-circuit LD in high school for 3 years.

This paradigm solely contains information on my predispositions and how I'll resolve debates in the absence of contrary instruction. The set of arguments for which I will not vote is vanishingly small.

I like debates where both teams respect each other and demonstrate they have put a lot of time and thought into their arguments, but I am largely agnostic as to the specific form and content that these arguments take. In other words, don't over-adapt.

egreerdebate@gmail.com

Overall Thoughts

-International relations and military strategy are not my areas of interest or expertise. You should err on the side of over-explanation when making nukes-topic-specific arguments. I am similarly uninformed about arguments related to economics and philosophy. I have a comparatively larger knowledge base about arguments related to law, elections/politics, domestic policy, and sociology.

-I prefer debates involving arguments about the topic. I think that policy debate should reward research and innovation within the topic area rather than incentivizing teams to recycle generics from year-to-year.

-Effective communication is imperative. Be clear; use numbers, emphasis, and sound bites to differentiate arguments; and focus on telling a cohesive story about why you win the issues that are most important for the debate. Don't be the kind of team that gets annoyed because I didn't think the one-sentence argument made 5 minutes into the final rebuttal was important for my decision.

-I'm not a disciplinarian. I will refuse to evaluate arguments about an opponent's behavior outside the debate. I have a high threshold for voting on procedural questions about an opponent's in-round behavior. Soliciting opportunities to make such arguments (e.g., by asking inflammatory CX questions) is a bad strategy in front of me.

-Ks are fine provided that they clash with core premises of the 1AC. At best, Ks are effective tools for grappling with and challenging the underlying assumptions of taken-for-granted worldviews. At worst, they are cheap shots that teams use to sidestep argumentative engagement.

-I rarely care about terminal impacts. Terminal impact calculus usually begs the question of the other levels of the debate. In a related vein, the argument that "extinction outweighs" is not an effective route to victory in front of me.

-I give speaker points in a normal distribution with 28.5 at the center.

T (vs. Policy Affs)

-I do not care about community norms. I will vote on topicality in elims of the NDT. I will vote on topicality against affs that were broken round one of the season opener. I see no reason why an interpretation's desirability would be affected by context within which an aff is read.

-The above does not mean that I'm "bad for the aff" in topicality debates - only that I think topicality is a germane criticism and that affirmative teams must take it seriously and answer it like any other argument.

-The thing I care about most in T debates is whether an interpretation is well-grounded in topic literature. Given equal debating, the person who is "correct" about what the words mean will usually win. By default, I view limits/ground arguments as a tiebreaker when two interpretations are equally plausible readings of the resolution.

-I haven't taken a grammar class since seventh grade. Please don't throw out random parts of speech with no explanation and expect me to understand.

-Neg teams are better served by speaking in terms of ground rather than limits. I care more about whether the neg has access to a set of cross-contextual topic generics than the number of case negs each team has to cut.

CPs/DAs

-Infinite conditionality is good. Persuading me otherwise is an uphill battle.

-I'm heavily aff-leaning on process CPs that do not include a reason why the plan is a bad idea. In other words, if I conclude that the "other issues" perm solves the net benefit, I'm unlikely to be a fan of your CP. If you can present a substantive DA to this perm (i.e., by proving that inclusion of the plan itself is undesirable), then I'm much more likely to vote neg.

-I default to thinking that it is illegitimate to fiat non-USFG actors, including the 50 states. It's much easier to convince me that 50 state fiat is legitimate than it is to convince me that international fiat or private actor fiat is legitimate.

-I don't judge kick unless the 2NR provides offense for doing so. Debate is about choices, and I won't make yours for you.

-I don't think anything can be "zero" risk. You're better off talking about risk in relative rather than binary terms.

-I won't vote for intrinsicness or theory against politics DAs unless dropped. Politics DAs are easy to beat substantively.

Ks (vs. Policy Affs)

-I have voted for Ks a disproportionate number of the times that they've been in the 2NR in front of me. When I vote neg, it's usually because the neg team invested a lot of time into a framework argument that mooted the aff offense, and the 2AR did not effectively argue that this framework argument was illegitimate.

-That said, I think teams tend to be over-reliant on framework. I would greatly prefer a debate which focuses on the desirability of the 1AC's underlying approach to politics in toto, to a framework debate. Neg teams should present aff-specific link arguments and case turns. Aff teams should present offense in favor of their assumptions.

-I don't find "you link, you lose" and "Ks are cheating" to be intuitively persuasive models of debate, but I will vote for either if executed well in the final rebuttals.

-Aff teams often spend large portions of their speeches making arguments about why the plan is good without investing sufficient time into winning that the plan being good is a relevant question for the debate. Arguments like "extinction outweighs," "perm double bind," and "alt fails" are not super useful when the 2NR is "vote neg because the 1AC as a rhetorical project was unethical." Instead, the 2AR should talk about why I should refuse to evaluate the 1AC solely as a rhetorical project.

-I think it is nearly impossible for the aff to "drop" a "floating PIK" because all aff framework offense is a reason why PIKs are illegitimate. If the aff wins that a plan-focused model of debate is good, then they have adequately answered the PIK because the PIK does not contest the plan's desirability. In contrast, if the neg wins that the plan doesn't matter, then almost all Ks are potentially plan-inclusive.

-Framework determines the threshold for alt solvency. If the desirability of the plan is a relevant consideration to the debate, the neg has a greater burden to produce an alternative approach to the world that would solve the impacts of the aff or solve another set of impacts that outweighs the aff. If the only relevant consideration is the desirability of the aff as a research object/scholarly project, the neg has a greatly reduced burden to explain what the alt means or does; in these instances, I treat "vote neg" as an alternative in itself.

-Fairness matters, but not as an end in itself. Aff teams must defend why fairness is necessary not merely for debate to exist, but for it to be a game worth playing.

K Affs and T/FW

-See the "Ks (vs Policy Affs)" section for thoughts on the fairness debate.

-Critique topicality, not the topic. Flaws in the topic are negative ground and therefore not offense against framework. Arguments such as "nuclear policy is imperialist" are relevant Ks of topical affirmatives, but they are not justifications for reading a non-topical aff.

-I hate arguments that rely on the premise that it's evil to defend or debate about things with which you personally disagree. College students do not have infallible understandings of the world. Debate intrinsically involves confronting the possibility that you could be wrong about your most closely-held beliefs - this is a feature, not a bug, of the activity.

-I prefer it when aff teams defend a specific model of debate. Speak granularly to the role your interp provides for clash/negation. Talk about core points of disagreement under your model and why this disagreement produces better debates.

Tips for Higher Speaker Points

-Read cards where the warrants are highlighted and point out where your opponents have failed to do the same.

-Send docs before ending prep.

-Don't send cards in the body of the email.

-Don't ask flow check questions (including "reasons to reject the team").

-Don't refer to the case pages as "advantage 1" and "advantage 2." I flow advantage names, not numbers.

-Don't read cards written by undergraduates.

-Don't reinsert rehighlighting unless the lines have already been read by the other team.

LD Paradigm

About me- I'm Sean Howell, a third year Lincoln-Douglas debater at Cherokee High School. If you have any questions, my email is seanparkerh339@gmail.com.

General-

· I am a traditional LD debater but I am fine with complex arguments. With that being said, I enjoy philosophy.

· Spreading is fine, as long as you are clear and articulate. If necessary in order to prevent confusion, your case or any specific cards can be emailed to me before the round.

· I resort to an Offense-Defense paradigm by default.

· I weigh feasibility over impacts.

Framework-

· To win the round, you must present a solid framework so I can evaluate your impacts. It can be a value/criterion or a standard.

· A role of the ballot argument will decide how I vote on pre-fiat issues and not post-fiat arguments. A role of the ballot does not replace framework.

Kritiks-

· Vague alternatives are bad, and any ambiguity will not work in favor of the K. This is especially for "reject" or "vote neg" alternatives.

· NR floating PIKs are just new args. If you think the alt leads to the aff, that must be clear in the 1NC.

· If you think your alt functions like an agent CP, be sure to read the CP section of my paradigm.

Theory-

· I think RVIs Good is a winnable argument given the time limits of LD

· Spikes should only be defensive, theory should only be run against arguments which create a real barrier to substantive engagement, and tricks are the bane of good debate.

· Aff's don't have to necessarily be T.

CPs-

· I lean aff on conditionality in LD.

· I don't think solvency advocates are always necessary.

· I dislike agent counterplans strongly.

Miscellaneous-

· DO NOT insult your opponent. If you are not respectful I will vote you down.

· Ask before the round if you have questions.

· If you run positions/rhetoric that are blatantly racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/etc and your opponent points this out and makes it a voting issue, I will give you a loss with the lowest possible speaker points.

I did PF for a good long time so I'm not a parent judge. Link your arguments, give warrants, and call out your opponents if their link chain or warranting is off. Weigh your arguments otherwise you're putting that responsibility in my hands and maybe I will have different opinions of what is most important than you. Crossfire isn't speech time, answer the question and move on, I won't be flowing.

I did public forum debate on the national circuit during my time in high school. I hate the evidence debate, clearly your evidence says one thing and your opponents says another so don't spend your time talking about it.  Debate is supposed to be educational, so tell me logically why your evidence makes more sense than your opponents.  Avoid getting too heated in crossfire cause I will zone you out if you start yelling. 

I do not like spreading.  Clear communication is key.  Evidence makes your case stronger.

I am a graduate of Virginia Tech with a BA in Business Management. I have led people for over 35 years in my professional career and have lots of experience in evaluating proposals, developing people, and making decisions. I say this to let you know, that I listen with a critical ear, looking for value in statements, and overall connectivity in thoughts. I am more of a traditional / framework judge and typically don't go for arguments such as "We live in a multiverse therefore..." Simply put, for a successful debate with me, just make a clear and cogent case.

When it comes to debating, I have very few preferences. I like to have Aff sit on my left and I ask that you do not spread (If I can't capture your points, it's hard to give you credit for them). That is it. Sit, stand, look at me, don't look at me...does not matter. Just give me your best performance.

I ALWAYS declare...That's only fair to you. I will give some feedback as well. This is meant for your benefit. As with all advice, only you can determine it's value.

I am a relatively new judge. I have judged less than 10 rounds of Varsity Lincoln Douglas. However, that has given me a good perspective on what a good round of debate is like. Here is what I expect from the contestants

1. Do not spread. Speak at a normal pace and keep it simple and clear

2. Value, Value Criterion - make sure you link your contentions back to the appropriate criteria

3. Impress me with your articulation, delivery style and body language. Show passion but don't be dramatic

4. Convince me that you are better than your opponent - using logic and stronger contentions. Use intelligent questioning during CX- I don't take notes during cross, but I will pay attention to the questions and use of time.