The 14th Scarsdale Invitational
2017 — Scarsdale, NY/US
Varsity Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate
in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance
my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)
I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)
speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol
impact your arguments (duhh)
Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...
counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case
dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios
k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...
preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...
framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)
short & sweet
#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)
Please speak at a conversational pace. If I can't understand your argument, I can't flow your argument.
Prefer quality over quantity. One solid argument will persuade me more than a dozen undeveloped arguments.
When speaking, please introduce evidence with the author’s full name, qualifications, publication, and publication date. This information is essential to evaluating the strength of your evidence. While last name/year may be the minimum requirement per NSDA rules, it is not sufficient to win the ballot. Each piece of evidence should be introduced with a brief pause or by saying “quote/unquote.” This is necessary to distinguish between evidence and analysis.
Please signpost with arguments, not authors.
Please ensure that your evidence supports the claims you are making. Disconnects between claims and evidence will seriously damage your credibility.
I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework,
My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine.
I'm a member of the Columbia Debate Society and a current Junior. I used to do PF for Anderson High School.
Please sign post and logically warrant you arguments, in most cases it’s not enough to merely cite someone's opinion. I'm most likely to vote on an argument if the weighing is comparative, tell me why it matters relative to your opponent's impacts. I won't flow cross, if you want an argument to go on the flow you have to mention it in speech.
I won't time you, you all have phones, time yourself and time your opponents. good luck:)
--This is my first major edit to my paradigm in, like, two years, so ask me questions before the round if there's anything here that doesn't make sense or I forgot.--
I debated four years of policy and one year of LD in high school from 2003 to 2008. I've been coaching LD since I graduated and I've been with Lexington for the past 5ish years. I'm also working on a PhD in philosophy (this doesn't mean what you think it means, see below).
General info/Speaker points stuff
--Email chains are cool, include me on them: firstname.lastname@example.org
--Run whatever you want to run as long as it isn't actively offensive. If you want a K debate, have a K debate. If you're looking for a values or stock debate, that's cool too. The space is yours, do what you want with it. There's stuff that I'm probably less good at judging than other people, but I won't drop you for running a specific type of argument unless, again, it's actively offensive.
--I'm 100% team tech over truth. A dropped argument is a true argument. That being said (and this applies generally as well), the dumber an argument is, the lower my threshold for a response is. So, while most arguments require actual, thought out responses, if you respond to "must concede after the AC" by just saying "no I don't", that'll count. So, don't drop stuff, but don't waste time on really bad arguments. If an argument is given without a warrant, it doesn't need as developed of a response.
--On that subject, warrants are cool too. I hate vague extensions, they bother me and that'll reflect in your speaker points. If you're extending a card, a theory shell, anything really, give me the warrant behind the card. What does the [evidence/shell/value/whatever] say, why is it right, and what does that have to do with my ballot? Better extensions and better storytelling mean better speaker points. Blippy extensions with no explanation require less to respond to because, as above, blippy extensions are bad arguments.
--I'm not the best at flowing. This matters less in a world of speech docs, but for stuff like detailed underviews (like cramming drop the debater, RVI, reasonability, and random evaluate theory after the 1AR spike into the same subpoint) or longer theory shells, slow down. No, seriously, slow down. I won't get all of the details, and then when you're posting me after the round about how I could have missed underview A, subpoint 3, as extended with random other thing on a totally different flow as defense somewhere else, I'll just say I didn't get it on the flow and we'll both be mad.
--I don't like doing work for debaters. Embedded clash is a nicer way of saying judge intervention. Don't make me do it. Offense weighing and comparison is probably the most important thing for me (and key to good speaker points). Don't just say why your stuff is good, say why your stuff is better/more important to my ballot than their stuff.
--Last thing for speaker points, the most important factor for me is strategy. If you make strategic arguments and there isn't anywhere where I think you should have done something different, then you'll get very high speaker points. Strategy is number one for me, but that gets weighed against not being a jerk in round, being funny, and being a good speaker. If you do everything perfectly but you're not a clear speaker, then you won't get a 30, but you'll still get above a 29.5. I'll say clear or slow if I need to, but if I say it a couple of times, then you should know what'll happen to your speaks. If I say clear, don't do that thing where you're clear for a couple of seconds and then just go back to how you were speaking before. Also, general rule of thumb, be loud. I don't hear stuff very well, so the louder you are the better. Don't scream at me, but you get the point.
--At least 80% of my neg ballots when I debated policy were on T. Love me a good T debate.
--General stuff: I default to competing interpretations, no RVI, drop the debater unless told otherwise. Also, general pet peeve, if you're going to tell me drop the argument and it isn't blatantly clear what argument I'm dropping, then tell me what argument I'd be dropping.
--RVIs need a little bit of work for me. You need to convince me why you get RVIs in the first place (RVIs are much more convincing against multiple shells or 7 off strats) and then actively identify what constitutes an RVI and why.
--1AR theory is fine-ish, but when a round turns into shell versus shell, it usually breaks down into incomprehensible nonsense and then I get sad and then I trash your speaker points. If it gets to this point, what makes me happy is offense comparison. This is usually easier if we're weighing between fairness and education voters, but if it's fairness v. fairness, then be super specific about why your opponent is being worse for fairness than you are. Compare offense, don't just extend yours. Alternatively, go meta and tell me why aff or neg theory comes first. Either way, don't ignore the other side of the flow, because then I have to do weighing for you and nobody likes that.
--I'll vote for disclosure shells, but the dumb argument vs. strength of response weighing from before applies here. If there's straight up nothing on the wiki and they're from a school where you'd expect something to be there, then fine. But if it's a small school non-circuit debater and/or your interp is "must disclose all speech docs, past 2NR strategies, and what they've had for lunch the past five days", then a lesser response is required.
--Generally speaking, if there's an obvious win on substance and a more difficult win on T or theory and you go for T or theory, I consider that a less than strategic move and it'll reflect in your speaker points.
--I was a policy debater after all, so I'm pretty comfortable with this kind of debate.
--Impact calc is your best friend. Good impact calc means good speaker points and typically is a tiebreaker if I want to avoid intervening. If I have a better understanding of why your impacts matter more than your opponent's, then you're probably going to win.
--This is a general thing, but I'll highlight it here and elsewhere, but extensions should include storytelling for me. Don't just extend the cards from the disad, explain the warrants and tell me how they link together into the story of the disad. Better extensions, better speaker points.
--So remember how I said that me being a philosophy PhD doesn't mean what you think it means? I study bioethics and general normative theory and have had any knowledge/appreciation of continental philosophy beaten out of me over the last 5 years. So, I'm actually not the best at evaluating super dense Ks, high theory, that sort of stuff. That being said, you can totally run it if that's your thing. However, you're going to ahve to take extra time for storytelling. What's going on in the K, what does the aff/res do that is bad, why should I care, and what do you do to make it better/different? So, don't avoid running Ks if that's your A-strat. Do what you do best. Just be good at it and we're fine. If you've grabbed a K from a teammate that you haven't seen before and don't know how to properly extend and explain, it probably won't go well and you should consider doing something else (this applies generally).
--Framework v. framework debates are almost as bad as theory v. theory debates in terms of incomprehensibility. So, do active weighing work. Why does your framework matter more? If your framework precludes, why? If they say their framework precludes, why doesn't it. If both frameworks preclude each other and I have no in-round way to determine whose actually does, we're all going to be upset.
--Role of the ballot/role of the judge is probably the single most important layer of the flow. I mean, you have the power to tell me what my ballot does. Use it to your advantage. If you win that the only thing I should care about is whatever the role of the ballot says I should care about, that's kind of a big deal. Use it to your advantage. On the other side of the flow, you really should spend time here if you're responding to a K.
--Totally fine with performances, but, and this also applies generally, weighing pre versus post fiat offense and why the performance itself matters is pretty important. This is another area where the role of the ballot is your best friend.
--Like I said, I'm usually pretty good about ethics frameworks since that's kind of what I do for a living. That being said, debate phil is 99% of the time waaaaaaayyyyyyyy different from academic phil. This is especially the case for K authors like Foucault, but also for Kant, Mill, Rawls, etc. So, you'll have a little more leeway with explaining evidence for something like a Kant framework, but you still need to do actual extensions and explanations.
Other miscellaneous stuff
--Again, if this is your thing, this is your thing so do it, but I'm generally not a fan of tricks. Most tricks arguments fall into the camp of bad arguments I describe above where a response of "nuh-uh" is sufficient. Again, if this is what you do, then do it, just be super clear about where stuff is located, both when you're reading it and when you're responding to stuff in c/x. Nothing is more infuriating than shifty c/x responses. Saying stuff like "lol I don't know what an a priori is" when it's pretty clear you do is an easy way to get your speaks docked. Don't be that person.
--In that regard, unless you legitimately don't know what the person is asking about, don't say "I don't know what that means". If you've been to camp or the TOC or on the circuit at all, I assume you at least have some understanding of what terms like pre-fiat or spike mean. That's being shifty and wasting c/x time and it's annoying.
--Flex prep is fine. To a lesser extent, so it using c/x time as prep if you want. It isn't a good look, but c/x time is your time to ask questions and use it strategically. Asking questions is generally better than not. Also, both c/x and flex prep are binding.
That's all I can think of for now, I'll try to be better about updating this more regularly. Again, if something here isn't clear or if you want to know more, find me at the tournament and ask or ask me before the round starts.
JUDGING PARADIGM - JAMES D'AMBROSIO
I'm a traditional judge with a solid grasp of the role(s) of the Affirmative (Aff) and Negative (Neg) putting forth arguments illustrating why they won the debate. I'm a traditionalist when judging debates: Cases should have a value and a criterion, and I should need only one (1) sheet of paper to flow the Aff and another for the Neg. Arguments should be topical. I understand there's more complicated arguments such as a 'kritik' or 'disadvantage,' but arguments can be successfully run within the traditional value and criterion framework.
Tell me, exactly, how to vote on the round in the NR and 2AR, explaining why your voting issues are superior to your opponent's. I want the round to be resolvable without having to rely solely on weighting the arguments. If I have to do that, someone may be very disappointed. I don't want that to happen.
The following behaviors will negatively impact your rating:
ETIQUETTE: Zero tolerance for aggressive, bullying behaviors towards an opponent. Debaters should show respect and courtesy towards opponents at all times.
RATE OF SPEECH: The National Center for Voice & Speech indicates that public speakers, on average, speak 150-160 words per minute. Rushing to fit in every possible argument will hurt your score. Speak in a clear, concise manner and explain your strongest evidence/arguments in ways a general audience could understand, because I might not fully grasp more advanced concepts such as 'spreading.'
JARGON: Use of debate jargon will also hurt your score. Don't use terms that only more experienced judges would understand. I have a working knowledge of basic terms, but it's much safer to just explain what you mean.
TRICKS: Refrain from using any technique(s) that makes it impossible for your opponent to compete on an equal footing. Such behaviors are unprofessional & ill-advised. Again, this will cost you. Debate on substance; debate about debate is frowned upon.
BIGOTRY: I will not tolerate any blatant racism, sexism, or anything of the like. This will make it nearly impossible for you to win.
The following behaviors will HELP your rating:
**Show some creativity and resourcefulness by trying something new (within debate rules) that you've recently learned or did not implement last year. I know you want to win, but in the big picture, you're honing your debate skills for college and beyond. Make a deposit on your future.
**Show some humility -- acknowledge excellence. If you're opponent does something particularly well or makes a very good point, tell them and tell me. As you should know from reading this, I reward outstanding professionalism. If more adults did this, we'd have less problems in society.
In light of the above, maximize your rating by playing it straight -- make strong arguments and let them speak for themselves. My only goal is to make fair evaluations and decisions -- let's work together on that.
I'm a communications professional with significant experience in public relations in nonprofit and the public sector. The above guidance, in part, is the result of implementing interpersonal and employee communication plans/strategies along with engaging all organizational stakeholders.
Last updated Nov 22, 2022
Hi, I’m Doron. I previously coached LD at Millburn High School (NJ) and currently coach at Mountain View/Los Altos (California). I’m also currently a graduate student in English literature at UW-Madison.
I like (almost) all kinds of debate, but especially k debate (including any kind of performance debate or critical aff).
- If you like (relatively slow) k debate and/or don't like "frivolous" theory/ tricks, you'll probably think I'm a good judge for you.
- If you like very fast and very technical debate with lots of theory, tricks, and up-layering your opponent, you will very likely think I am not a good judge for you.
I really don’t like speed very much. There are a few reasons I might point to, but really the most important is that I’m simply not very good at following fast rounds. My threshold for understanding speed is very significantly lower than most judges with circuit experience. To give you some context: if we could compare a typical conversation pace to something like a casual stroll and top-speed circuit spreading to an olympic sprint, I would say my comfort level tends to max out at what I would describe as a brisk jog. I can understand and follow a couple clicks faster than the average lay round, but anything more than that will start to undermine my ability to properly evaluate the round. I should also make it very clear that I’m happy to be on the email chain, but I’m not going to flow from your speech doc. I might refer to it for something like an author name, but if I can’t understand you I’m not going to just read the speech doc for your entire AC.
This doesn’t mean I will automatically vote against very fast debaters. If you’re going too fast, I will say “Slow” up to three times. After the third time I’ll simply do my best to listen to whatever I can. But I will only vote for arguments that I understand.
Also please keep in mind that if I'm judging you in an elimination round with two judges who are more comfortable with speed than me, then I totally understand if you decide to spread beyond my threshold in order to target the other two judges. As indicated above, I'll try my best. I just can't guarantee I'll be able to make an informed decision.
This is the kind of argumentation I'm most interested in. My favorite rounds over the last 13+ years of my involvement in debate have been, without fail, ones that left me feeling like I learned something new. I find k debate to be a particularly effective way to cultivate that kind of feeling. This means that my favorite mode or "version" of k debate is one that isn't just trying to be "competitive" or "strategic," but is genuinely interested in challenging the perspectives of everyone involved in the round (your opponent, me, and even yourself) by giving us a new way to understand the topic and/or the world. Accordingly, If you read a k that isn't just designed to "win" the round but that also operates as an insightful pedagogical tool -- especially one that, by the end of the round, I feel genuinely helped me learn something I didn't know or didn't understand before -- it is very, very likely I will vote for you.
I've never judged a k debater who didn't spread, but I'm not sure why so many debaters seem to have made the assumption that one needs to spread in order to run critical arguments. As someone who spends most of my time with various kinds of critical theory, I can assure you that you can in fact read and discuss it below 400 words per minute. If you compellingly defend pretty much any kind of critical arguments (on either aff or neg) without spreading, you will very likely end up with a W and at least 29 speaker points.
I will similarly reward k debaters who focus on engagement rather than confusion and evasion with high speaker points. Trying to win the round by insisting “my opponent fundamentally misunderstands the k” (or some similar phrasing) and thus trying to prevent/preclude their arguments rather than actually engaging them isn’t a very good way to get my ballot. If you run a k, I won’t expect you to know everything about the critical tradition behind the k you're running, but I will expect you to answer basic questions about the k in cx without being evasive. You should, at the very least, be able to explain the basic idea of the k in clear, plain language. A good rule of thumb if I'm judging you is to imagine that you aren't just trying to "win" the k, but trying to "teach" the k -- that includes being clear about what the k indicts and why.
Though it isn’t my favorite style of argumentation, I’d guess I have a significantly higher level of appreciation for good “traditional” debate than most circuit judges. This is especially true when debaters demonstrate really strong fundamentals (efficiently answering arguments so as to create good flow coverage even without spreading, being a genuinely compelling and polished speaker, presenting a strong strategic understanding of how arguments interact with each other).
I like these debates also. It's also worth knowing that just because I like k debate doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote against you if you're a LARP debater in a K round. I vote against k debaters pretty regularly when LARP debaters expose a lack of topic knowledge or general strategic failures in the k.
I say “(almost) all kinds of debate” above because I don’t really like evaluating theory debate, nor would I say I’m especially good at it. Unless you really convince me that you're responding to a genuinely abusive position and wouldn't be able to engage without theory, I'm probably not going to vote for it even if you’re technically ahead. Obviously, if you primarily consider yourself a theory/tricks debater, I'd recommend not preffing me.
Things that will get you high speaker points:
- Any debater who reads a critical argument and a) demonstrates a genuine knowledge of the relevant lit (i.e. explains the argument clearly and concisely both during speeches and in cross-ex), b) gives precise, original, topic-specific links, and c) does all of this without spreading will be well on their way to 30 speaker points. I’ve yet to see it happen, but I’ll be glad when I do.
- I’ll give 30 speaker points to any debater who, over the course of the round, causes me to rethink (for the better) any component of how I conceptually understand or approach debate.
- I will give a 30 to any debater who reads an argument, k or otherwise, that genuinely changes how I see or understand any aspect of the world.
- Make genuinely insight, original, and interesting arguments. This doesn’t mean you have to talk about something entirely new that I’ve never heard before: it might be a new spin on something I’m familiar with. For example: a cap k that has really interesting links and establishes a perspective that debate doesn’t typically engage.
- Alternatively, read an argument I’ve seen a hundred times, but make it the best version of that argument I've ever heard.
- The surest way to get high speaker points from me is to make me feel like I've learned something new from watching you speak. This could be about pretty much anything (economics, politics, etc.) but is especially true of philosophy / critical arguments.
Likes: signposting; solid evidence/links and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of evidence; well constructed arguments that are on point and do justice to the important topics being debated; and good speaking skills.
Philosophy: I'm familiar with a few common LD frameworks but beyond that, it's to your advantage to err on the side of explanation.
Speed: I can't flow circuit-level speed and pushing that limit won't make me more likely to vote for you. I can flow fast conversational pace. I will let you know if I can't flow you by saying slow or clear, but by then it means I've already missed something.
Theory: should be avoided.
K's: I am unlikely to be persuaded by role of the ballot arguments. I will listen to post-fiat critical philosophy provided that explanation is clear.
Debate judging experience: parent of a VLD debater from Princeton High School and have judged at several tournaments.
Hi! I did LD for 4 years and graduated in 2017, going to TOC twice and clearing there as a senior. I coached Byram Hills for two years. I've also worked at camps every summer since graduating, as Co-Assistant Director of NSD Philly 2019 and as a lab leader at NSD Flagship 2017-2019, TDC 2018, and VBI LA I 2017.
Email: email@example.com Please put me on email chains!
I have no preference as to what you do with your speech time as long as your arguments have warrants and some framing as to why they're relevant. Don't assume I’m familiar with any dense literature and clearly explain the ballot implications of every argument.
I will aim to be as non-interventionist as possible and will vote on almost* any argument as long as it a) is not abhorrent and b) contains a logical warrant. Examples of arguments I would not vote on include "racism/sexism/homophobia good" (because those are abhorrent) or "the sky is blue so affirm" (because that lacks a logical warrant).
*I've added a couple of exceptions, scroll down to the "other notes" section to see them.
Please slow down on interpretations, advocacy/framing mechanism texts, and author names. I don't check speech docs in round, so don't bank on me reading along with your speech. I only check speech docs if some detail is contested or if it's my fault that I miss something.
I also believe strongly in trigger warnings for graphic narratives or discussions of particularly sensitive issues. I am fine stopping rounds in instances where a debater is unable to debate due to triggering material--please let me know if this happens. I expect the debater who failed to give a trigger warning to concede the round in such instances.
These should never be relevant because I will never use a default if an argument is made on either side of the issue—the defaults are only here for the (hopefully rare) case when no debater makes a single argument on some important framing issue.
- Truth testing over comparing worlds
- Competing interps over reasonability—I also have no idea how I’d evaluate a “gut check” reasonability brightline so please don’t ask me to gut check. It would probably not work out in your favor.
- Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
- No RVIs (and if the RVI is won, I meets do not trigger RVIs)
- Metatheory before theory; T and theory on the same layer
- I don't have a default side for presumption. In the absence of any offense left in the round and no presumption arguments made, I would vote for the person who had better strategy/technical skill/argument quality (in other words, the person I would give higher speaks to).
- I don't think a default for whether Ks or theory should come first in the abstract is possible since they're both just pre-fiat arguments about what debate should look like. I'd default to whichever position indicts the other probably, but these positions frequently indict each other, so weighing really matters here. Just make those meta-level framing arguments and avoid chicken-and-egg debates.
Important note on defaults: If both debaters carry out the debate under some shared framing assumption that was not argued for, I will use that shared assumption as my default rather than these (i.e. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in their 2NR and 2AR but forget to read a voter, I would act as if a voter had been read rather than intervene, cross all theory off the flow, and vote for some random 1AR substance extension).
- Please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.
- I end up judging a lot of rounds that result in determining the validity of very short arguments made early in rounds that end up mattering much more later in the round (e.g. spikes). These often rely on making judgments on the weight of each argument on a somewhat arbitrary basis. I do everything I can to evaluate the round in a non-interventionist manner, but the burden is on debaters to prevent situations in which intervention could occur. If you plan to muddle rounds to sufficiently confuse your opponent to win, please ensure that you are not also confusing your judge to the point where I cannot easily trace your path to the ballot.
- To be more specific about the previous point, if a round has two contradictory spikes that indict each other and one debater wins one spike and the other debater wins the other, I will default to argument quality/strength of link weighing. There is no way to be absolutely objective about this, so please interact your arguments!
- NEW: I will not vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the [insert speech]" if the argument is made in the speech mentioned in the spike. For example, I won't vote on "evaluate the theory debate after the 2nr" if it's made in the 2nr. This is because any answer to the spike is technically a theory argument, making it unclear if even evaluating answers to the argument is legitimate. I will also not vote on this argument in any speech absent a clear articulation of what constitutes the theory debate and just generally have a low threshold for responses.
- I require theory violations to be verifiable. I’ve seen rounds where people lied about whether a position is broken or whether something was on the wiki. Just provide screenshots please! If someone makes an I meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), I default to the I meet being true (innocent until proven guilty).
- I won’t go to someone’s wiki to check a disclosure violation myself—that’d be like looking up a definition on T.
- Flash/email everything you read off your computer to your opponent and judges! People often exclude analytics when they flash stuff and those are sometimes hardest to flow.
- If I have met you at previous tournaments or camps, please don't make conversation with me that could make your opponent feel excluded. I promise that reminding me that I have judged you before or that you know students I coach will not have any bearing over whether I will vote for you--I would have marked you as a conflict if that were true, and it just leaves your opponent feeling rattled and unsure of whether I will be impartial. I have been on the opposite end of this enough times to know how much it sucks when it looks like your opponent and judge are friends.
I will try to assign speaks based solely on strategic vision, argument quality, and in-round behavior. I will say clear/slow/loud as many times as needed. I do not disclose speaks during the RFD but will if you come to find me individually or email me after the round.
I dock speaks for:
- Being unnecessarily rude/patronizing/condescending (especially when you’re much better than your opponent)
- Lack of framing issues
- Being racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc—this is a given
- Stealing prep time/not being ready/delaying the round in any way
- Having gendered language in your pre-written spikes/shells/etc
- Talking about what I did as a debater or making personal appeals to me, talking about my former teammates, the debaters I coach, or well-known people in the activity--this excludes people with less "rep" or fewer connections in debate and makes everyone uncomfortable
Have fun—this is your activity! Make it a good experience for everyone. I am happy to answer questions about my paradigm before the round or about my decision after the round.
For the email chain and any contact you need - firstname.lastname@example.org
I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.
I graduated from Liberty University in the spring of 2011 after debating for 5 years. Before that I debated 1 year of LD in high school. Since then I worked as a debate coach for Timothy Christian High School in New Jersey for 6 years, traveling nationally on both the high school and college circuit. Currently I am the Director of speech and debate at Poly Prep in Brooklyn.
I view debate as a forum to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. I prefer in depth debate with developed material that you look like you have a grasp of. I will always work hard to evaluate correctly and with little intervention, especially if you are putting in hard work debating.
Learning debate from within the Liberty tradition I began by running conventional policy arguments with a proclivity to go for whatever K was in the round. However, during my final 3 years my partner and I did not defend the resolution and our 1nc looked very similar to our 1ac. Personally, I’m a believer and coach for advocating liberatory and conscious debate practices. However, there will certainly be a gap at times between my personal preferences and practices and what I vote on. I’m not going to judge from a biased perspective against policy arguments, and although tabula rasa is impossible I will try to evaluate the arguments presented with limited interference.
Ultimately, do not let any of this sway you from debating how you prefer. Doing what you think you are the best educator on will probably be your greatest option. If any of this is unclear or you have questions that I have not address below please feel free to ask me before a round. Have fun, debate confidently, and be genuine.
Last updated 1/10/2020
PAPERLESS and prep time (LD and Policy specific):
Prep time ends approximately when the speech doc is saved and you remove the jump drive / hit send of the email. An overall goal (for both paperless and traditional teams) is to be prepared to begin your speech when you say end prep.
Speaking mostly to HIGH SCHOOL students:
Everyone involved in the round should be able to have access to any read piece of evidence once it has been presented. This means that if you are reading off of a computer you are responsible for providing your opponents with either a jump of what you are going to read or a physical copy before you start your speech. We shouldn’t be unreasonably fearful of people ‘stealing’ ‘our’ evidence, as source information should always be provided, and also because it’s certainly not really ‘ours’. You may, however, respectfully require your opponents to delete anything you provided them with during the round.
SPEAKING STYLES and speaker points:
I’m certainly open to (for lack of a better word) alternative and non-traditional approaches to your speech time. Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that are usually underutilized by most speaking styles and debaters, and should be present in both constructives and rebuttals. After all, debate is at its core a communication activity. Cross-ex is a great time to exhibit this as well as advance your arguments. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech. Being a jerk, unnecessarily rude, offensive, stealing prep, and not being helpful to the other team during cx or prep time are all things that will negatively effect your speaker points outside of the quality and delivery of your arguments.
HIGH SCHOOL LD SPECIFIC:
Yes, I am fine with speed, but that does not give you an excuse to be unclear. I may call clear once if it is an issue, however it is your responsibility to be an effective communicator during your speech.
I have experience to evaluate theory, but certainly prefer substantive theory (T, condo, NIBs, are all examples) as opposed to frivolous theory. You should probably slow down when reading your shells if you want me to be able to write down the nuances of your argument. Due to my background in college policy there may be a few preconceptions that I have that you should be aware of. Theory is not automatically an RVI, and I probably take a little more convincing on the flow than most judges in this area. You need to explain to me why a violation has resulted in abuse that warrants either voting down the other team or rejecting a specific argument. Simply claiming one to be true is not enough work here. When answering theory, showing how the abuse can be solved by rejecting a particular argument can make the violation go away.
Conceded and dropped arguments are considered true on my flow, unless they are morally repugnant or blatantly false. An example of the latter is even if your opponent drops a theory shell, if the team clearly does not link to the violation your accusation does not make that true. Conceded arguments must still be extended, warranted, and argued, but you should focus more on their implications.
Please read the paperless / prep time and the speaking style / speaker points sections of my philosophy located above.
PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC:
A quick overview statement: It seem that circuit PF is going through a growing period where it is solidifying some norms and practices. As a result of this, I will typically default to the understanding of the debaters in the round. I am also open to different interpretations as long as they are defended.
Concerning defense in summary: As indicated above, this is something that I am going to let the debaters determine / debate for themselves. However, if at any point the defense has been front-lined / responded to (either in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary), then these arguments need to be answered and the defense needs to be extended for it to be available in final focus.
The rest of my philosophy is not specific towards ld or policy, high school or college, and it may do you benefit to read it as well, especially if some of your arguments tend to look like policy arguments.
FRAMEWORK (when run by the neg):
I think that negatives have the ability to and should engage with affirmatives that don’t defend a normative implementation of a plan. Even if the aff doesn’t defend the resolution there are still many substantive things that they will defend that provide ample ground. Although this ground might not be as predictable as your interpretation on FW calls for, it is still predictable enough to meet the threshold that you should be prepared for it.
Having said that, I think I’m one of those few sick individuals that will actually enjoy listening to framework debates as long as they are well developed on both sides. Granted, I will most likely be a harder sell than most, but I don’t think this should dissuade you from going for it if you think it is your best option. You will need to make inroads to the aff’s arguments by articulating ways traditional debate solves for their impacts. If you lose the impact turn to politics you will not win FW debates. You need to make arguments to the effect of traditional policy debate being key to a better form of politics and articulate net benefits to your interpretation from this. I think that the type of education we foster in debate far outweighs the preservation of the game in the strictest sense. That is to say that fairness claims alone are not the way to persuade me on FW. You should instead use claims of fairness to hedge against the impacts from the aff.
However, the main substance of FW debates (for both sides) should be about the competing benefits to the type of education and scholarship different traditions lead to.
For affirmatives concerning framework strategies, your greatest offense will be specific to your particular argument. I will be more easily persuaded if your aff is connected to the topic. I don’t appreciate aff’s that are written that hide their purpose or are exclusively constructed to impact turn FW. While I prefer some kind of relationship to the topic, I don’t think it is necessary. However, you do lose the ability to make an important strategic argument that other plan-less aff’s should employ, which is that your aff is important to topic education. More developed, this argument should be that your aff is necessary to topic education and that without it the debate ground that is left leads to bad forms of scholarship. That is to say that you aff is essentially topical. This argument is both inherently offensive and also provides the ability to make defensive claims against the neg’s offense.
This is the type of debate that I am most familiar with and have the largest literature base with (I was a philosophy major). However, messy and poor K debates are probably the worst. The key to winning this kind of debate is making the general link and alternative cards as specific as possible to the aff. I am not saying that the key is reading the most specific evidence (although this would be nice, however most of our authors here don’t write in the context of every affirmative), but that you need to find ways to apply the generic concepts to the specifics of the aff. Without this it is easier to be persuaded by the perm.
Teams are responsible for the discourse and performances in which then engage in given the context of the world we are situated in as well as the argument style the team engages in.
Aff’s have a wide range of arguments they can deploy, and are probably best sticking with the ones they are most comfortable with while doing a good job showing how they relate to the critique.
Concerning the perm, it is usually not enough work to simply show how the two different advocacies could work together. At this point it becomes easy to vote on the alternative as a purer form of advocacy without the risk of links. Aff’s should articulate net benefits to the perm to hedge against residual links and different DA’s to the perm itself. Case should be one of these net benefits, but aff’s need to watch out for indicts to foundational assumptions (concerning methodology, epistemology, ontology etc.) behind your impact claims.
Concerning framework: when was the last time a relatively moderate judge decided that the neg shouldn’t be able to run their K? The answer is probably a long time ago. The majority of these debates are compromised in the 1ar by allowing the K given that the aff gets to weigh their impacts after a lot of wasted time by both teams. I can hardly think of a situation where I would be persuaded to only evaluate the plan verses the status quo or a competitive policy option that excluded the alternative. However, I can envision certain ways that this debate goes down that convinces me to discount the impacts of the aff. In general, however, most of debate is illusory (somewhat unfortunately) and these framework questions are about what type of education is more important. If you chose to run framework with you aff you should keep these things in mind concerning your interpretation for debate.
PERFORMANCE or project verses a similar style:
These debates are some of the most important and essential ones for our community, particularly as more and more teams are participating in this form of advocacy. We need to debate and judge in light of this fact. These are also some of the most difficult debates to have. There are several reasons for this, one of the most poignant being the personal nature of these debates combined with the close relationships that most people amongst this insular community have with one another. We need to realize the value in these opportunities and the importance of preserving the pureness of our goals for the debate community. That might mean in some situations that conceding and having a conversation might be the best use of a particular debate space, and in others debating between different competing methodologies is a correct rout to go. In either case we need to realize and cherish common goals. In light of this it isn’t a bad thing to agree with large portions of your opponent’s speeches or even advocacy. Instead of reproducing the gaming paradigm of traditional debate, where competition is valued over advocacy and winning over ethics, we should instead choose to celebrate the areas of alignment we find. Conceding every round where this happens, however, is not a good idea either. This would send a message to the debate community that debate dies under this framework. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a possible time and place for it though.
When both teams largely agree on certain foundational framework questions efficacious debate can still happen. While making distinctions between advocacies and methodologies is essential for this kind of a debate, you should probably not manipulate and create links that are artificial. Distinctions that are made out of an in depth knowledge of the issues are far more beneficial and consistent. Traditional debate might look at these kinds of rounds as two ships passing in the night, but I think there can be a different metaphor – one where the teams are two ships starting at the recognition that the resolution and the debate community is flawed and that the round can be decided upon which team provides a better methodology and performance to get their ship further in the direction of what we should be as a community and culturally aware individuals.
I am undecided as to whether the aff should be allowed a perm and this should probably be debated out. However, I think that the aff should always have the ability to point out when a negative advocacy is the same as theirs.
THEORY / T:
Any bias I have towards theory will probably result in placing a burden on the team that reads the violation to prove that it should result in a voting issue. However, I don’t like shady stuff done only to be obnoxiously strategic. Don’t do it.
One thing that I definitely do not like is when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. This will usually call into question the solvency of the critique if the aff takes advantage of this.
I don’t think that I have a bias concerning reasonability or competing interpretations, but I will probably default to competing interpretations until the aff is shown to be reasonable and from there it is up for debate.
COUNTERPLANS / DA’s:
I am probably liberal concerning counter plan theory, and aside from the question over conditionality most other theory arguments are probably reasons to reject the cp. Aside from traditional theory answers, showing why a certain CP is justified given the specific aff is a good response.
PICS that are specific to the aff are great, however word pics should probably just be articulated as links to the K.
Uniqueness controls the link only if a particular side definitively wins it.
I generally evaluate from an offense / defense standpoint, but it doesn’t mean anything if the CP links less than the plan does to a DA if the CP still meets the threshold for triggering the link. In that world there isn’t greater offense to the CP.
I abhor spreading (speed reading). This is killing the beauty of LD Debate. Please present your case how a normal person does.
I do not understand deep philosophy. Therefore please stay away from rhetoric.
I am an engineer. Understand logical construction of a case. Please stick to that form.
Roslyn HS ('17), Columbia ('21)
Be nice and be strategic. I'll evaluate pretty much anything you want me to, so long as you explain it clearly. This goes for Theory, Ks, Plans, Performance, etc. I have experience judging/debating most things, so go for whatever. I've been away from the activity for a few years now - (1) I probably won't be able to handle your top speed; be clear - if I can't understand your args then I won't vote on them, (2) if you choose to run something weird then be prepared to explain it well.
1. Be adaptive and be nice, especially with lay debaters. Lay debate is where everyone starts out, and it's the type of debate that most people expect when they first join a debate team. If you intentionally exclude your opponent by spreading or reading arguments that they clearly do not understand, I will know, and will not hesitate to reflect that in your speaks. The best debaters are the ones who can adapt themselves to their opponents, not the ones who rig the contest in their favor.
2. Extend your arguments. If your opponent drops something, don't assume that I'll catch it and do your work for you. Extend your arguments and impact them back to your framework. Higher speaks for good overviews, clear voters, and just generally making the ballot easy to write.
3. Truth >>> Tech, Theory > K, Fairness > Education. I always liked knowing what judges thought of these issues before my rounds so I figured I'd disclose my own thoughts. I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues though, so feel free to go for your strat. I should note that I have a very high threshold for tech > truth args, especially if what you're going for is blatantly untrue/ridiculous (i.e. "I'm not the neg, I'm the negative").
4. Theory arguments need to tell a relevant and developed story. As a debater I frequently used theory as a strategic tool but that does not mean I want to spend 30 minutes sorting through your messy theory debates. At the end of the round, I don't care if they dropped the analytic under subpoint d on your limits standard - I care about whether the abuse justified you taking the time to read theory, and whether the arg in question deserves to be dropped/they deserve to lose. Similarly, having been away from the activity for a few years now, my tolerance for frivolous theory has dropped significantly. While I believe that theoretical abuse generally outweighs critical education, you need to tell me why their specific violation prevented you from engaging in the arg/debate. Don't read bidirectional theory or pedantic arguments unless you think you can really sell the abuse story. I also won't vote on a shell unless I have a cleanly extended interpretation, violation, standard, and voter.
5. My role as a judge is to evaluate who did the better debating. In the same vein as my stance on frivolous theory, I have a high threshold for ROB's that claim my role as the judge is to be a critical educator. It is my personal view that you, the debaters who have spent hours researching different sides of a topic, are each other's critical educators, but that's just me. If you want to break out K lit that you feel is relevant to the debate, you should tell me why the impacts of the K outweigh substantive impacts (or even theoretical ones, depending on the K). This isn't to say that I won't evaluate args that question what I should vote on first (i.e. pre-fiat vs. post-fiat), but rather that I prefer clash over evasiveness.
EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students.
Please just call me Hertzig.
Please include me on the email chain: email@example.com
CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.
Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)
Trad debate - 1
T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)
High theory Ks - 4
Theory - 4 (see below)
Tricks - strike
If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.
I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds.
I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).
I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.
For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).
Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.
To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.
Hi -- I'm a parent and a lay judge. I did not debate in high school, nor in college. I've been judging for a few years. Two years of MS parli, one year of HS PF and one year of HS LD. In PF, I'm looking for the most persuasive argument you can make.
In all formats, I am partial to empirical arguments. While LD is about morals and ethics, and while PF is about topicality, I am helped in both cases by seeing how an idea or an argument is applied in the real world.
In LD, I can understand about 90% of the words you say if you spread, but I have trouble processing your cases at that speed - it's just a bunch of words I mostly recognize. You can talk fast, though, and being a New Yorker I will understand that, at least.
Some quick and important stuff for the 2020 virtual season (full paradigm and bio is below and unbolded):
1. I'm happy to listen to and vote on Ks, theory, phil, LARP, tricks, etc. (pretty much all the standard LD stuff). I also tend to have a pretty good ear for speed so that shouldn't be an issue.
2. I've noticed that I tend to evaluate debates pretty technically. The debaters that tend to perform best in front of me (no matter which types of arguments they are reading) are very good on the line-by-line but are also able to do bigger picture weighing and argument interaction. This basically means I'm very skeptical of embedded clash so I'm willing to vote on shorter arguments if they're dropped or mishandled but those arguments needed to be weighed and interacted with the other important arguments in the round.
I debated for Scarsdale High School for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I also coached Scarsdale for 2 years and taught at NSD for two summers.
I will vote on any argument that has a warrant that at least somewhat follows from the claim and is impacted back to an evaluative mechanism deemed important in the round. I have no preference for any one type of argumentation: this means that you can feel comfortable reading framework, LARP, Ks, theory, tricks, etc. in front of me. You should do what you do best and feel is most strategic in the given round.
Framework: These debates are enjoyable, but they can get very messy if both sides are just extending preclusive arguments and not doing much interaction. Weighing between framework warrants will be extremely helpful if you want to win a framework debate in front of me. Also, you should make clear what impacts matter under your framework (i.e. whether it is ends-based or means-based).
LARP: Good evidence comparison and impact weighing are the keys here and will be rewarded.
Ks: I view role of the ballot debate in a similar fashion to framework debate. That means that you should be doing interaction between your role of the ballot and your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework. If you lose the role of the ballot debate, the impacts of the K only matter if you explicitly link them to your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework.
Theory: Please slow down while reading interp texts so that I actually understand what shell you are reading. Absent any arguments to the contrary by the debaters in-round, I default to competing interps and no RVIs. All voters (even fairness and education) need to be justified. I will not vote on new 2AR theory or a 2AR RVI to a new 2NR shell (I will vote on new 2NR shells however if they are won).
Tricks: They need to be impacted to something, even if it is not a standard. Likely tricks will link to a role of the ballot (i.e. truth testing) which means that if your opponent wins an opposing role of the ballot they may have no impact.
I judge, traditionally, based on whether or not a debate can stay on topic, and solve for the issue. Remain respectful and on pace. You must have the knowledge to articulate your knowledge and evidence in comparison to your opponent. Do this and you shall succeed.
Not best judge for theory
The framework debate should be prioritized in EVERY SPEECH. I prioritize persuasion, TRUTH over TECH, and clarity.
Criteria for high speaks: Your arguments are supported by specific evidence and I am able to follow your arguments THROUGHOUT the round (obviously, the winner will get the higher speaker point. I rarely give low point wins.)
Read the policy section. It applies to LD as well.
1. Whether the politic you're endorsing is institutional or communal, please show up with a method that makes sense and works
- you cant just put a bunch of kritikal literature in an aff, say the world sucks, and be like "at least the conversation is good" OR throw me a whole bunch of inherency about pollution in the South China Sea with one solvency card from a Huffington Post article
- I personally have done more K debate but I also admire the style of traditional debates: state action, counterplans, disads, give me all of it. I'll bump your speaks if you read a disad with a terminal impact that isn't nuclear war or extinction lmao
2. If you're going to go for discourse as an impact/voter, tell me how the discourse you provide affects the demographic for which you are advocating and
- In other words, what does "burning it down",or "the libidinal economy", or "post-metaphysical dynamics" mean for shorty in line at the welfare office? What about that white dude in the coal mine in Arkansas?
3. Cross Ex is binding, say it wit' ya chest.
A hack for my ballet: The more simple the better. Aff should do something and the ideal neg strategy should be some case specific case turns coupled with a kritik or counterplan
- I've done PF at several national and local tournaments
- Keep in mind that public forum debate serves to communicate complex messages with public forums so your discussion should ALWAYS sound/seem accessible to those who don't debate. No super special language, arguments about what should be"common sense/knowledge", or bad attitudes.
Quick questions and stuff: firstname.lastname@example.org with the subject line "DEBATE JUDGING"
I am an active coach and former advisor for Forensic Debate and Speech with 10 years experience judging tournaments at the local, state, and national levels. I am familiar with requirements at each level of competition, novice through varsity, for high school students. My original training and education was as an English teacher at the secondary level (NYS Eng/Language Arts, 7-12). In that capacity the importance of developing skills in reading, writing, speaking, listening, analysis and research, was the focus of training. When debating, the mastery of clear communication skills, and the ability to present a well supported, convincing argument come alive. A strong argument will demonstrate sharp critical thinking and analysis of an issue; these are key elements in both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate. Presenting with clarity and enthusiasm is vital to delivering both affirmative and negative positions. Be aware of your speed: "electronic speed" that does not enhance articulate delivery is not an advantage. Your thoughts, reasoning, and the development of your position are essential. I identify as a diversity enhancing judge and support inclusion. The art of debate is a challenging, highly original, and thought provoking experience for everyone to share.
UPDATED FOR NCFL 2019
Ryan Monagle Ridge High School PF coach
In general the clearest ballot story tends to win the round.
Speed: I'm fine with most speed, easiest way for me to comprehend your speaking style is by starting off at conversational pace through the first card so I can familiarize myself with your cadence. After that feel free to take off. Just a note on speed and spreading, I'm 100% 0kay with speed and enjoy it in really competitive rounds, however the speed needs to be justified by a greater depth in your argumentation and not just the need to card dump 100 blippy cards. If there is ever an issue of clarity I will say clear once, afterwards I will awkwardly stare at you if there is no change and then I will stop flowing.
Rebuttal: MAKE SURE YOU SIGNPOST, If I lose you on the flow and miss responses that is on you. I'm fine with line by line responses though most of the time they tend to be absolutely unnecessary. I would rather you group responses. Card dumping will lead me to deducting speaker points. Trust me you don't need 6-7 cards to respond to a single warrant.
Summary: Don't try to go for literally everything in the round. By the time Summary comes around the debate should have narrowed down to a few pieces of offense. Any offense you want to go for in final focus has to be in summary. Whether or not you go for defense in 1st summary is up to those debating in round, sometimes it isn't 100% necessary for you to go for it, sometimes you need to so it to survive the round. You should make that evaluation as the round moves along.
Final Focus: Weigh in final, if neither teams weighs in round then I have to do it at the end of the round and you may not like how that turns out. Weighing should be comparative and should tell me why your offense should be valued over your opponents.
Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire, typically I spend time writing the ballot and reviewing the flow. However, I still pay attention to most occurrences in crossfire. If you go for a concession be explicit and I'll consider it, but you need to extend it in later speeches. Also if you happen to concede something and then immediately go back on it in the next speech I am going to deduct speaks.
Speaker Points: My evaluation for speaker points revolves around presentation and strategy/tactics in the round that I'm judging. Feel free to try to make me laugh if you can I'll give you big props and you'll get a bump up in speaker points.
Please, I beg debaters to take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to challenge evidence ethics in round, I would gladly evaluate a protest in round and drop debaters for evidence violations. I think the practice of lying about/misrepresenting evidence is something a lot coaches and competitors want to see change, but no one takes advantage of the system that currently exists to combat these behaviors in round.
For NCFL: Judges can read evidence if the validity of the source is in question you have to explicitly tell the judge to call for the card in question.
This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.
I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.
Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.
OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague
Tech or Truth?
I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.
Hey, please add me to the email chain email@example.com. If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing poorly run joke arguments.
PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.
How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. If you don't do this I will try to flow arguments on the right flow but some arguments are bound to get lost so please try to stay clean. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.
Online Debate Update
Record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.
By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. If you can't speak for 5 minutes about condo in the 2AR then don't go for condo; it's as simple as that. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.
I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.
I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.
I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.
Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.
Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.
So I will only intervene in three instances. First if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Second I will judge kick conditional arguments despite this I will be upset if you don't make it clear what you're going for.
- What gets you good speaks:
- Making it easier for me to flow
- Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
- Making things interesting
- Clear spreading
- Productive CX
- What hurts your speaks:
- Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
- Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
- Being really boring
- Being rude
- I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
- If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
- Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
- In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
- Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.
- 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
- Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.
I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.
My name is Alexander Nayfeld, and I have approximately 3 years of debate experience, 1 year in Public Forum, and 2 in Lincoln-Douglass debate. To keep this brief, I come from Marlboro High School, a school which no longer has a Forensics program to speak of, and which only boasted a program comprised of around 7 active members, at most, when I was still in high school. However, despite the lack of prestige my background offers, I am still confident in evaluating the vast majority of arguments. I never achieved noteworthy success on the national circuit, but I am comfortable with theory, off-cases, all technical debate terminology, and speed. Philosophical/logical warrants for values are highly encouraged, and, in general, I believe that, if you do choose to argue a value at all, the value must ultimately be established firmly before any further contention-level argumentation takes place. In my view, the majority of faults in current discursive circles lie in the inability to recognize the dissonance between opposing base values and how those values take form to begin with. Assuming you are using a standard case-structure, I would appreciate elaboration on how values take form/how we conceive of them in the first place from the perspective of your moral framework. "Utilitarianism" or "deontology", for example, are not in themselves warrants for values unless you can specifically explain why those moral theories are logically sound within the context of your case. If you value "morality", for example, please thoroughly explain why you do so, what this accomplishes, why these accomplishments ought to be valued, and how your opponent's value(s), or lack thereof, is not logical given these parameters. I understand that time-constraints, formulaic debate strategies, and other complications may make value-heavy debate difficult without sacrificing in other areas, so please take my paradigm as largely preferential guidelines and not obligatory mandates for victory. Again, I am comfortable with all forms of argument and will evaluate anything within reason. It is simply my opinion that debate is fundamentally an exercise in maneuvering logical premises such that your conclusions are shown to be more valid than your opponent's. If your contention-level arguments are the pieces with which you play, then your basic value-structure is almost certainly the board upon which the play is held. It would be better for everyone involved, therefore, if it is decided by the end of the round whether we are playing chess, checkers, or monopoly.
** Updated in 2021**
I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged both policy and LD since 2016.
TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.
ONLINE DEBATE UPDATES
In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important. I will try to resolve tech issues in the round to the best of my ability.
I use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.
If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Because of this, keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.
In general: I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates but am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.
On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.
A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.
On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.
On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate.
On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.
In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents. Please take care to not misrepresent your evidence. Along those lines, I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence.
On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.
On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.
One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.
On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate.
On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.
On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.
Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow
On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.
One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.
boston latin academy '17
smith college '21
email: firstname.lastname@example.org (yes, pls add me to the chain!)
i am a senior in college and have been judging on and off since i graduated high school. i did policy debate, mostly reading k arguments. i have not done any research for this topic so i would really appreciate explanations of topic-specific minutiae & acronyms
do what you do best unless it is offensive. to get my ballot, all you gotta do is tell me how to vote, how to evaluate the round, and explain why you should win. your last speech should be writing a ballot for me. pick the arguments you are winning on the flow and explain/weigh your impacts, and dont drop anything important. please extend warrants, not just tags. i will also probably not do any work for you unless the debate is really close so i would much rather you explain the warrants of a card rather than telling me to read it after the round. most importantly, just have fun with it and be kind to each other.
i have judged a handful of LD rounds, however, i never did LD in high school so I'm really not super familiar with it. as long as you explain your arguments though, I should be able to follow. if you go for theory, i really want to hear in-round impacts or scenarios. if you go for an RVI, make sure that it is reasonable.
slow down for online debates. please be clear or i will probably not be able to flow you.
i am absolutely cool with these arguments, and really appreciate well-written k affs. i love judging these debates, however, these affirmatives do require lots of explanation in comparison to regular policy affs -- explain your methods, your authors' arguments, why a rejection of the rez is important...
explain the alternative and tell me why the k outweighs the aff. i love a good link debate. don't expect me to be familiar with your k lit though, please explain your arguments, especially if you are reading high theory.
do impact calc, compare interp evidence, and weigh your interpretation against the other.
tell me why your model of debate is preferable, why education offered through policy simulation on this topic is good, do impact calc. i appreciate a good TVA.
i haven't voted on theory a lot, but if you prove in round abuse and impact it well, you're golden.
PLEASE keep it short and sweet. If you start taking too long to flash, I will start prep.
Feel free to e-mail me or ask me questions about my paradigm before the round! If you want to know more about how I think about debate, just read Moselle Burke's paradigm
I debated for 4 years at Bronx Science. Questions? Facebook message me, or email me at email@example.com
Bronx Update: I have not judged for the better part of, if not more than, a year. You will definitely need to slow down with most stuff you read in front of me or I will not be able to follow. Flashing/email chains are heavily recommended.
Make the round your own, unless you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, or choose to actively exhibit problematic behavior. Read whatever you want, just remember that I haven’t been involved with debate for nearly half a year, so you can bet I likely won’t follow your top speed filled with a massive dump of spike-filled args. Best bet? GO 75% SPEED WITH SLOW TAGS, AND USE A FEW SECONDS OF REBUTTAL TIME TO ROADMAP.
Don’t know what I absolutely WONT listen to? Check the bottom of the paradigm.
Ask me for clarifications if you need to know about any specific type of argument you want to read.
Debate, despite its disadvantages, is still a forum for competitive education. You can still have the aspect of competition, but don’t sacrifice education for it. I have no particular preferences for what kind of argument you choose to run. I will listen to most arguments so long as the premise of your debate is not to actively exclude the other debater. I do have arguments that I will paradigmatically not listen to, check the list at the bottom of the paradigm to find out which.
Be courteous. Don’t be mean. Now, I guess specifics are in order.
I like listening to well-written frameworks. If you are able to explain to me the logical justification behind why I should believe that actions derived from some ethical principle is good, chances are you will have the framework debate down. Have solid justifications in the framework and MAKE SURE THEY ARE WARRANTED.
I default competing interps, drop the argument on theory, and drop debater on T. If you are able to convince me otherwise, it better be well warranted. Reasonability is also fine as long as there is an explicit metric and threshold for what exactly is reasonable within the context of the arguments in play during the round. Don’t read friv theory, chances are I won’t enjoy it, you’ll get low speaks and I will more likely be inclined to vote against you for it.
I was a performance/K debater during my senior year. I believe the judge serves the role of an educator meaning Ks do belong in debate, don’t just prima facie try to exclude them. There is a vast ocean of literature so do not expect me to be well read on everything, so explanations of the literature are recommended.
· Roadmap so I know where on the flow you are
· First time judging in a while, so go slow
Arguments I will ABSOLUTELY not vote for
· Disclosure theory
· Skep vs. Ks
· Racism doesn’t exist bc science
· List will get longer in the future
If you crack jokes about the following people without being blatantly offensive you will get higher speaks:
1) Neal Kapoor
2) Michael Corder
3) Jacob Ronkin
4) Karan Choudhary
5) Brandon Kramer
6) List to be edited in the future
I debated competitively for four years at the Bronx High School of Science. I primarily debated on the national circuit and I got a bid in my senior year, while competing in many bid rounds during my sophomore, junior, and senior years. Since then, I worked at NSD and VBI for 2 summers, coached multiple independent debaters and coached Bronx Science. I coached 3 kids to the TOC.
Conflicts: Bronx Science
Short Version: I ran almost all types of arguments throughout my career, so I'll be fine listening to anything. Make sure you weigh back to some sort of framework and compare your arguments. I take the route of least intervention. If you're running a confusing position, please explain it well. Spreading is cool and I will yell "clear." If you have any questions, my email is at the top.
1. Theory/T: I read this extensively during my sophomore and junior years and enjoyed having these debates a lot. I don't default to any voters or paradigms, meaning you will have to justify those yourself. If no voters are read and there are no arguments that tell me to evaluate the shell otherwise, I will evaluate it as a response to whatever argument violated the shell. That being said, if paradigms and voters are conceded in the following speech, it is not necessary to extend it, but at your own risk. If your opponent points out that you didn't extend it and makes arguments as to why that means theory is no longer a voting issue, I will then move on to the next layer. I would prefer it if these debates are based on weighing offense back to each interpretation. I also don't care if you use it as a strategic tool or not. However, if you hit a K, I would prefer you read it as a link to the role of the ballot rather than something that just excludes any and all discussion on their issues. Lastly, asking me to gut check frivolous theory isn't a response to theory, so I will not do that, absent some mechanism telling me what theory shells to "gut check" and why said theory shell fits that description.
2. Kritiks: I read Ks a lot more often later in my career, starting junior year, and I also enjoy these debates a lot. I probably enjoy listening to K debates more than anything else, granted there is comparison and weighing. You should start your later rebuttal speeches with the role of the ballot or other framing arguments. I try to be well read on as much literature as possible, so I know and understand most of the common K arguments on the topic (from identity politics to high theory). However, that does not necessarily mean I, or your opponent, will understand your particular position; so, be sure to explain it well. That does not mean repeating what your tagline says; rather, it means you should explain it in a different way, using simple terminology and concrete examples. These examples don't even have to be real historical occurrences, since you can often relate an argument to some physical scenario (I know what yellow is because it is not any other color). When it comes to making a decision, it is necessary that I understand how each argument functions in round: why it answers your opponent's argument, the relevant advantages and disadvantages, etc. In other words, you should aim to explain your positions in the best way possible, but I will be primarily concerned with the interactions I see on the flow. Non-topical ACs are cool, but I think it's better if they're disclosed. It's hard to have a debate against a case you had no idea would be run and it is impossible to expect that you'll have prep against it absent disclosure. You will not be penalized for not disclosed your non-topical cases and I will not have a bias for disclosure theory in this instance.
3. Framework: Framework debates can be very interesting and have some of the best interaction. Not many debaters opt to do framework debate anymore, which is sad. Make sure you explain how offense functions under your framework and what the arguments in your framework mean with complicated philosophy. I enjoy cases that use non-utilitarian frameworks with a plan. I am also open to hearing framework arguments against Ks. You can make arguments for why your framework comes first, but you can also read your framework as a counter method. Just don't make arguments for why your framework means their issues don't matter, as the other option is not only more interesting and involves better interactions, but it also ensures that debate remains a safe space. Impact justified frameworks aren't great either. The only impact I assume is bad coming into the round is oppression.
4. LARP: Unique plan texts are fun to hear and they should be disclosed. However, I prefer plans in the context of non-utilitarian frameworks. I think politics DAs, and most extinction scenarios are rather ridiculous, but that just means if your opponent loses to these arguments, that's completely their fault. I also will not automatically prioritize evidence over analytics, absent reasons to do so.
5. Tricks: I enjoyed running this a lot - just not against Ks involving issues of oppression. Those debates are uncomfortable for everyone else in the room, and if you use tricks to conclude that oppression is permissible, then you should expect to be dropped with low speaks. That being said, I will definitely evaluate tricks and will enjoy rounds with interesting and unique tricks - even if they are straight up ridiculous. I'll probably laugh, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Also, tricks don't necessarily mean just "skep" or "presumption." They can be topical and substantive too. Putting substantive tricks inside your T and theory shells is something I'd find cool too.
6. Speaks: I will generally follow the guidelines for calculating speaker points in the document under "Speaker Points Calculation." Your speaks will automatically go to 0 if you are offensive or violent in the round. Additionally, I do not think it is under my jurisdiction to evaluate arguments about speaker points in round. Clearly, they are not a source of contestation or impact my decision calculus, and so I will ignore arguments that ask me to change your speaks.
a. Sit or stand - I don't care. Just be clear (and yes, I will yell "clear" or "slow.")
b. It would be nice if you slowed down on taglines, author names, interps, plan texts, and important stuff like that.
c. I want CX to start right at the end of the speech and prep to start right at the end of CX. Don't waste time asking "Is everyone ready?"
d. I think disclosure it good for debate, but I also think forcing your opponent to disclose is bad. In general, I prefer seeing disclosure.
e. I personally don't think flashing should count as prep, but I don't think that is under my jurisdiction. If both debaters want flashing to count as prep, then it will.
f. Spreading is good. I will yell "clear."
g. I tend to not evaluate embedded clash, unless I cannot logically come to a decision without evaluating it. If the aff is winning an argument for why pineapple pizza is terrible on one part of the flow and the neg is winning an argument on another part of the flow that pineapple pizza is great, I will have to evaluate embedded clash in that instance, even though the aff is probably correct.
h. If you have any questions you can ask me in round or email me. My email is at the top.
Generally, I try to evaluate rounds by making the most logically consistent decision, while also intervening as little as possible. First, I look at all of the framing arguments that tell me how I should prioritize layers in the round. For example, which comes first: substance or theory? Once I sort through the layers in the round, I start from the top. If a debater wins that layer and wins that it is a reason I should vote for them, then I will vote for them. On a particular layer, I have to have some sort of framework for how I evaluate arguments on that layer, so I evaluate those framing issues first. Then, I need impact calculus for how to evaluate arguments under that framework on that layer. Lastly, I determine who wins the best impacts under that framework. For example, say that fairness is a voter and theory is drop the debater with competing interpretations and no RVIs. Then, the impact calculus is that impacts to strategy come before any other standard no matter what. So, I have to determine which interpretation is best for strategy and I determine who wins on the theory flow there. If the person responding to theory wins, then I simply move on to the next layer below that since there is no RVIs. This is a very simple example, but the same logic applies for any situation. This describes how I view the round at a macro level.
At a micro level, things get a little bit more complicated because we have to consider questions such as whether I evaluate embedded clash, whether I can even evaluate arguments that I don't fully understand, etc. The general way I go about evaluating arguments on the micro level is to compare the claims and see which person has the best warrant. Of course, what counts as the "best" warrant is subject to the judge and is why judge intervention is inevitable, but to minimize the risk of intervention, you should tell me why your warrants are the better warrants. This is just basic warrant comparison. Given this, I do need to understand the argument's premises and how it interacts. I find that in most rounds, only one debater will be doing warrant comparison on any given issue, so resolving that is easy. I evaluate arguments primarily on the place of contestation. Physically speaking, this would mean where the arguments are on the flow. Therefore, I will not freely evaluate embedded clash, unless I'm told to. If I'm told to, then I will just cross apply whatever arguments you are making to the correct place on the flow. However, after I draw a conclusion from a specific place on the flow, it needs to be logically consistent with every other part of my decision calculus. Therefore, I will evaluate embedded clash if and only if conclusions I draw from two different parts of the flow contradict. For example, consider a round where the aff wins on the AC that material strategies are good because the state is inevitable. Say this argument was conceded. However, on the K flow, there are arguments for why the state is not necessarily inevitable and those arguments are won. It would be logically inconsistent to say that material strategies are good since the state is inevitable if I can also say that the state is not inevitable. The way I resolve this is to take the arguments on different parts of the flow and see what comparisons exist.
There are three categories of arguments that I find to be paradigmatically outside my jurisdiction, and so I will not evaluate these arguments even if you make arguments as to why I should. The first category of arguments are offensive ones. If you make a claim that someone needs to warrant why oppression exists, or if you make a claim that is outright offensive or violent, then I will not only ignore the argument, but I will also drop you and give you a 24 (or lower depending on the degree of violence I find in the argument). The second category is arguments about speaker points. Clearly, your opponent is not going to focus on disproving your argument for why I should give you 30 speaks and so it is not a source of contestation and is not relevant to my decision calculus. Therefore, I will just ignore these arguments. The third category of arguments are new arguments in the last rebuttal speech. I will not evaluate new arguments in the 2AR, with the one exception that you criticize an egregious form of violence in the 2NR. This means I will not vote on 2AR theory in almost any circumstance. I will only evaluate new arguments in the 2NR if you explicitly justify why that is allowed (allow new 2NR responses to spikes). So, while I generally follow a specific path to deciding the round, this outlines the few exceptions to that.
Speaker Points Calculation:
I am a trained second year to LD debate judging, having judged dozens of rounds in the past. I am a traditional judge. I'd like to see a value and a value criterion. Tell me how these two function together and why they're important. I am not well versed in philosophy so please explain it in a way the average person would understand. Speak at a rate of speed which average person would understand. I'd like to see a substantive debate about the topic and only the topic. Please ask me questions about what I would like to hear before the round starts in order to help you. Avoid debate jargon, I know some, but play it safe. Tell me exactly how the round should be decided in your last speech. Make sure you weigh arguments for me. Be polite to your opponent and to me. The most important aspect to me would be to refute your opponent's arguments. Overall, treat me as if I am a average person off the street who knows how to fill out a ballot, because debate is about persuasion.
I am a parent judge for Princeton High School on my second year. I judged LD at numerous tournaments last year, typically varsity with some JV and novice. A long time ago I completed during high school in LD (3 years), Congress (1 year), Extemporaneous and Impromptu (4 years each) including at the NFL National Championships twice (Congress and Extemporaneous) and California State Championships (multiple categories) 3 years. Best results were 5th Place nationally in Extemporaneous Commentary, and 3rd and 5th place CA State in Congress. Subsequently I was a speechwriter for the CEO of a large public company and served as the company spokesperson.
Ultimately I will do my best to follow and adapt to any style or technique. However, I have a strong preference for traditional at a persuasive pace. I prefer elegant, compelling oratory over speed, great facts over sheer quantity, compelling overall case and rebuttal over technicalities or K's, etc. I'm not impressed with the Trumpocalypse or Pokemon arguments, for example. Support a few key points very well and carry them through successfully defended all challenges. Don't assume I am already fluent in your value criteria. Don't short-change the contentions. Don't let challenges to credibility of your sources go without a response.
And have fun. Seriously, if you're not enjoying it what's the point?
I debated Policy in the national circuit for Science Park High School for three years and Public Forum for the remaining year. As a judge I feel that my only obligaiton is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present and defend their arguments. I will not do any work for either side, what is not said is not assumed and will not be considered. I will vote on any argument (theory, K, etc.).
Conflicts: Hunter,Lynbrook, Scarsdale, Princeton DS,Byram Hills LG
I debated for 4 years in LD at Lynbrook High School in California and graduated in 2017. I qualified to the TOC twice and broke my senior year. The majority of my debates during high school revolved around theory util and kritiks but that doesn’t mean I won’t be effective at evaluating other types of debates, I’ll just have less background knowledge and experience resolving them so you’ll have to do more explanation. Please weigh and impact arguments that'll make the round so much easier for me to make a decision. I don’t know what type of judge I am but I am open to voting on p much any argument as long as it has a warrant that I can articulate in the rfd and explain the function of the argument in the round. This mean go for all your nontopical k affs, frivoulous theory and tricks but you still have to win them like any other argument. I default drop the debater, competing interps and no rvi but that's only if no other argument is made on either side. I still am figuring out speaker points but I tend reward people for being entertaining and creative with their strategies as well as for good execution and clarity of strategic vision in the round. Most importantly just have fun. I enjoyed debate a lot when I did it and hopefully you do too :)
I am a parent judge who would like to listen to a debate about a value criterion and the topic. Please avoid speaking too quickly. I will try to evaluate all arguments.
If you are looking for a round with theory, Ks, etc. please strike me.
I'm lay. Speak slow.
-written by the son of James Wayne
I really like a properly ran cap K. Down with capitalism!!
Feel free to run anything in front of me, but I would ~prefer~ that you not run frivolous theory.
I believe disclosure is very good unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise.
Topical puns in you speech will increase the speaker points you get.
I have previous LD and PF and Policy experience but I was not a tricks debater.
I won't vote on the K if the alt is unclear - same goes for policy advocacies. Clear solvency please.
firstname.lastname@example.org for questions
I've debated in Lincoln-Douglas for Newark Science, and since graduating I judge local and national tournaments. I am NOT very familiar with Policy debate so please keep that in mind. As long as you are clear and concise in your speech I will be ok with moderate spreading. Theory arguments are cool, but I'm not a big fan of K's and critical arguments if it can be avoided. Please be aware of your judge and don't be offensive or disrespectful during your arguments. Be sure to focus on the big picture argument and tell a story or paint a picture to win me over I like to be walked through your points I won't do any work for you when voting.
I am a parent judge. I have 3 years of experience judging LD at various national tournaments. I prefer traditional debate. Please speak clearly and persuasively.
I'm a parent judge who's been judging for 3 years on the nat circuit
Please don't spread - add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I try my best to make decisions off the flow, not based on rhetoric, although speaker points will obviously reflect a mix of both
That being said, please make my decision as easy as possible - I protect the 2NR from shifty 2AR's, and weighing + clear ballot stories are a beautiful thing
Feel free to run any relatively stock positions like CP + DA, etc. - substantive debate should be fine if adequately explained
I've voted on progressive arguments before, including one off K's, performance affs, etc - but these are always a tossup and I don't trust myself to evaluate them very well
I understand basic util/deont (Kant mostly) syllogisms but don't hit me with the a. action theory b. bindingness stuff - just explain it thoroughly and make interacts
Speaks average out to a 28.5 and I'll try to keep it reasonable
I debated for Harrison High School in NY for 4 years.
I would prefer to watch a debate where people engaged with each other's arguments instead of relying on backfiles...
I am fine with anything but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh and impact your arguments.
I have not debated for a while and have forgotten a lot about the literature. If you read dense philosophy or a K, I need you to explain your arguments. If I do not understand what you are arguing I will not vote for you.