Louisiana District Tournament
2018 — US
Speech (Speech and Debate) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am an ordained Episcopal priest and I teach elementary religion. I have a B.A. in history and an Mdiv. in theological studies and study mostly classical and patristic theology. I also study classical philosophy.
This is my second year judging and coaching debate.
Spreading: No. this is Lincoln Douglas, I want to hear it all.
The most important aspect to winning my ballot is threefold:
Clash: I enjoy and appreciate the clash of debate (who doesn’t). I am pretty tolerant of debates getting heated, but my patience runs thin when one debater is arrogant to another. Keep it civil, but engage each other in some way. The debater that engages the clash first and most will tend to get my ballot. I do not appreciate tricks, so you will want to stay away from them.
Clarity: I heard a judge say last year, “I prefer quality over quantity.” This is where I stand. If I cannot understand or follow your argument, I will struggle to judge you and you will lose the ballot.
Evidence & Philosophy: I prefer clear, concise evidence and sourcework. Don’t bring up evidence you can not support with documents, you will lose my ballot. This poses an ethical dilemma. I am an Aristotelianite. I find Aristotle's philosophy a breath of fresh air, as I prefer logic and reason in arguments. Do you have to argue Aristotelian philosophy to win my ballot? Of course not. Adding philosophical discourse will help your ballot.
Finally, Respect is key. That includes perceived arrogance and inappropriate comments or body language. Keeping under control is part of the civil debate process.
Spreading: YES for 1 & 2 AC and 1 & 2 NC. NO for CX, 1 & 2 AR and 1 & 2 NR. Add me to the email-chain if you are sending (Jay.Angerer@stmsaints.com)
I like and appreciate creativity in policy argument. Please have your evidence ready and back up what you say.
I take notes, but not flow. The better I understand, the better I can judge.
So, classically, I'm a hybrid of Tabula rasa (Blank slate) and Policymaker (Whatever is the better policy will win). Keep this in mind when choosing cards and setting your framework.
Spreading: No. (PF needs clash more than Lincoln Douglas!)
Most importantly, keep the arrogance to a minimum, no disrespect and any inappropriate comments or behavior (including facial expression) will automatically lose speaker points.
Point out to me clearly why your case should win, why the other should lose and a clear framework is very helpful on both sides. If you can not show your cards (evidence) then all case work based off that card will be dropped.
Public Forum paradigm
I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).
I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.
Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.
Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.
I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.
And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.
Lincoln Douglas paradigm
Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?
I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.
Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.
Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?
Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.
Throughout all styles of debate, clarity and clash are important to me. I need to understand what you're saying all the time. While I'm okay with some spreading, make sure you elaborate on which points you're attacking/defending if you decide to jump around. Also, I teach math. I deal with enough tangents throughout the school year. You can attack contentions with all sorts of wild card examples all you want, but you NEED to attack the structure of the case as well, be it a value, a plan, a model, etc.
I'll flow to the best of my ability, but I can only write so fast. Pace yourself properly, and have fun with it!
For LD -- still very new at this. I'm a "community" judge. I do believe that even though LD is a debate event, the power of persuasion in your delivery shouldn't be ignored. My ears are not trained to follow a policy case read at 100 mph.....so, with me (especially on the AFF) to remember that "more" is not necessarily "better". Have a solid case, drive your points home, and for both parties.....LISTEN to your opponent, and if they open a hole in their argument, I expect you to go for it....failure to do so, tends to make me feel as if you weren't listening.
For Speech events --
- Competed 4 years in High School. 3-time National Qualifier....'
- Competed 1 year on the College Circuit
- 3 daughters -- all multi-national qualifiers....
- HI -- I hate "cartoon" pieces.....don't find them funny. I love something well written, delivered by someone that understands the lines, and gets the humor. If your funniest line is in your Intro -- that's usually a sign your piece isn't that funny.
- DI -- Loud doesn't always equal - emotion. I prefer pieces that build...that keep me interested...and that have a "moment".... Pieces that take 7-8 minutes to get interesting -- are usually hard to judge....because you tend to lose the audience.
- OI -- OI is supposed to be a torso-up event. If you are treating OI as DI with a book -- I'm going to mark you down for it....
- OO -- It's a speaking event....not a "Term Paper on Tape" -- Keep it interesting/entertaining....
- DEC -- give me a little emotion -- but not too much....
- POI -- Love the event -- impress me.....you have the ability to use the book as a prop, and you have the ability to move -- again, not too much -- but show me something I've not seen before....
- Finally -- for the Interp Events (including DUO/DUET) -- "Literary Merit" means something to me. Junior High quality pieces should be marked down. Intentionally adding something that's not in the piece or intentionally misinterpreting the author's intent -- should be marked down as well.
Respect your competition. Phones off. No talking during the round. Unless you are cross-entered, you should watch the entire round. I have watched many enter, perform, and then leave -- not because they are crossed, but because they feel as if they are too good to watch the competition. I believe your ability to be professional -- is just as important as many other parts of your performance.....
Happy Speeching --
I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. At the end of your final speeches, I expect to hear clear voters. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.
I graduated from Christ Episcopal School in Covington, Louisiana in 2014. I qualified to the TOC my senior year and competed on the national circuit for about a year and a half. I broke at the Louisiana state tournament multiple times.
To win and get 30 speaks in front of me you need to do three things. First, provide me with a weighing mechanism of some sort. I have no preference as to the form that the mechanism takes, just make the mechanism clear. Second, you need to have some form of offense and that offense should be extended in round. My threshold for extensions is low. Lastly, I need you to do some comparative weighing between your offense and your opponent's offense. The offense can take any form you want it to. I am fine with all forms of argumentation although if you have specific questions you can look further down the paradigm.
Here are some things I don't like a whole lot:
- Recycled frameworks (whether they're the same old policy making frameworks that everyone is using or some recycled K framework cut from articles and books you've never heard before)
- Arguments read straight from backfiles you didn't cut
- Debates with little to no comparative weighing
- Not giving me voters at the end of your last speech
- Debates with competitive framing that has no framing debate or in which the framing debate is really muddled.
Just always be clear in front of me. Whatever you're reading, just be clear about all the different parts of your case and the way those parts interact with your opponent's case.
I haven't judged very fast debates in a little while, so you may not be able to go top-speed in a round. I also think that spreading to exclude an opponent is a pretty bad thing to do, and it will reflect in your speaks if you are obviously trying to spread your opponent out of the round.
I have a pretty low threshold for extensions. I just want to know where it is on the flow, I want a short summation of the argument, and I want you to tell me why it matters in the round. If it is a contested piece of evidence, you may want to go more in depth and extend the warrant, but if it's flat out dropped, you shouldn't spend a ridiculous amount of time on the act of extending itself. Impacting out is the most important part of this process to me.
Just be super clear about the parts of your case. Slow down on texts and important tags. I enjoy judging these rounds when they are done well but I think the whole "race to extinction" can get really old when everyone uses the same impact cards that don't really have much of a warrant, so just cut well warranted impact cards (that probably don't have to impact to extinction) and you can avoid my biggest pet peeve of larping. Just be super super clear when you are impacting out and weighing between impacts since that should be the most important parts of debates like this.
Don't rely on any knowledge you assume I have about what you're running. If you are running something critical, have an interesting and unique link story, a well-thought out framework, and a fleshed out alt (so don't just run a link of omission and some under-explained alt with a recycled framework). Please don't run something from backfiles you hadn't seen until ten minutes before this round or that you haven't actually cut anything in. You should be fluent enough in the literature so that you can explain it in your own words to me as the judge. If you are engaging in this type of debate, you are going to have to be doing some clear framing and you should be fleshing out the link(s) you are making. Also, I think critical affs (especially post-fiat critical affs) are really cool and should be run more often in debate and if you are running arguments like that, just be sure to do the framing work that that requires.
So, I never ran much theory as a debater. That being said, I harbor no ill-will. My threshold for answering theory goes down as the theory becomes more and more frivolous. I default competing interps. The easiest way to win a theory debate in front of me is to be really clear about the link story and to really crystalize the debate at the level of the standards. I am not the biggest fan of the strategy of running 3 or 4 shells to suck time but if you win one of the shells then I will vote for you.
- I don't like it when a debater who is clearly better than their opponent beats them into submission. Be respectful, please. The entire point of this activity is education and no one is educated when they get needlessly destroyed. If you do this, it will reflect in your speaks.
- I don't vote for morally reprehensible arguments. A lot of ambiguity is usually attached to that statement, but I will make it clear. If the argument you are making makes the debate space hostile for someone else, I will not vote for it. This doesn't mean I won't vote for skep, but I won't vote for "racism good", "sexism good", etc.
- I have no preference when it comes to in round composure.
- You should have something to give your opponent during round for them to read off of. I don't care if you flash the case, e-mail it, print it out, or write it by hand, there should be something for your opponent to look off of.
- No eating or drinking in CX time. That's super rude and it wastes time and I don't like it. You can eat or drink at any other point in the round.
- I'm fine with flex-prep and I will try to pay attention during it but I can't promise I will so you should probably try to get concessions during CX time.
- I'm not a fan of blippy spikes and arguments. I can't flow them well and if I don't flow them they don't exist. You probably shouldn't run a strategy that relies heavily on these kinds of arguments.
- I give speaks based on strategy. I start at a 28 and you move up or down depending on how you approached clash in the round and the strategies you go for.
- Have fun and be substantive. I don't really care on what level the substance exists. Be courteous and don't make me feel uncomfortable with your treatment of each other and everything will be pretty good.
Pronouns: she/her. Email for the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
**UPDATE December 2020: I am old now. I don't participate in LD much anymore. I do not know your norms now, nor does anyone in my real life regularly speak to me at 400 words per minute. Please slow down (especially since we will be on videoconferencing, but also just in general) and if you're going to do something weird and strange, maybe don't, or at least be very, very clear about whatever you're doing.
Former LD coach at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans, LA.
I debated for three years at Hopkins High School in Minnesota and graduated in 2014. I competed on both the national and my local circuit. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals my senior year (2014). I went on to do 4 years of NPDA debate in college. I am currently a third-year law student, and I have not been involved in debate for a while. Everything below is my paradigm for judging LD. Apparently I also sometimes involuntarily judge policy, PF and speech now though, so if that's what you're here looking for, just know I've seen rounds for all of these, but really only have a surface level understanding of these activities. If you want to make sure I'll understand something specific about one of these activities, ask me before the round.
General Preferences: I like interesting framework debates, theory/T debates, clear policy debates, and good phil. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as you win it. Any case structure is fine as long as it makes sense. Please do some weighing too (PLEASE), otherwise I’ll have to anger one of you by making the decision by myself. I like to see a clear ballot story, so make sure you provide me with that. Please basically write my RFD for me.
Theory: I ran a lot of theory and really enjoy a good and interesting theory debate. That being said, I hate bad theory debates. I default to competing interps and no RVI, but if you make arguments for reasonability or RVIs that’s fine and easy to get me to vote on as well. Offensively worded counterinteps don’t need RVIs as long as you win offense to the counterinterp. PLEASE ALWAYS WEIGH BETWEEN THEORY STANDARDS AND SHELLS - if you don't do this, it will lead to me intervening and making arbitrary decisions based on my own personal preferences and I'll be angry and you'll be angry and everyone will be angry so please just weigh. Also weigh between voters. Weigh between theory and t. Just weigh.
Kritiks: I disliked Ks as a debater, they have grown on slightly me since I have graduated and have started to read more critical literature. However, I am still probably not as well read in the lit as you probably want me to be. Capitalism or biopower? Go for it. If it's anything really nuanced, I would either advise a) you don't run it, because like I said, it will be more unclear to me than other args or b) slow down and really explain it. Give me big picture arguments when you're reading critical args to be sure I understand. If I don't understand it after your first speech, I won't vote on it. This means that no matter how clear you are in CX or your rebuttals, I still will not vote for you unless you make it really clear in your first speech. Full disclaimer: I have absolutely voted people down because I didn't understand their K and they explained it poorly and so I had no basis to vote for them. I'll do this to you too if you don't explain your arguments. Don't be mad if it happens; I warned you, and you can run something else.
Speed: I’m fine with speed as long as it’s clear (but see my disclaimer/update above -- I am old now). I have no shame and I’ll yell clear as many times as I need to and won’t detract speaks unless you clearly don’t make any attempt to slow down. Keep in mind though, if I yell clear, I probably missed the last 3-5 seconds of what you just said. If it's important, go back and reread it or it will not be flowed.
Presumption: I’ll vote on presumption if it’s triggered or you make other arguments like ‘skep means presumption’ but I won’t really ever just vote on presumption because I don’t think there’s any offense. There’s probably always offense, or at least some way to justify a ballot for one debater. I default aff gets presumption.
Things I really don't like and will probably drop speaks/debaters for:
- Disclosure Theory/any theory with an out of round violation: I HAVE NO WAY TO VERIFY WHAT YOU POST/SAID TO EACH OTHER WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE ROUND. I don't think judges have the jurisdiction to vote on this if both debaters make competing claims about whether or not something was disclosed. Be super wary running this in front of me, or better yet, don't read it at all. I will not go look at the wiki for you.
-Being belittling or rude to an opponent who is clearly not as experienced as you. If it's pretty clear you're going to get the ballot, make the round accessible and educational.
- Racist/Sexist/Blatantly offensive arguments (these I will just drop you on face for)
If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask before round.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I evaluate the debate by best links back to the framework. Weighing impacts and crystallization is very important to me. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters.
Be respectful. Debate is supposed to be an activity for everyone.
While debate is inherently about the arguments, it has a performative aspect. How you deliver your speeches and conduct yourself matters. I’m a former debate coach, but have been out of the league and circuit for almost a year now, so I would be grateful if you kept speed to about 70-80% of your usual pace so I can keep up with your arguments.
NOTE: This paradigm is meant for policy debate. If I am judging you in any other form of debate then what I have below does still apply but I am not all that familiar with the format or norms of argumentation for other forms of debate. If there is a specific way in which your form of debate should be framed and evaluated, it is your responsibility for making that known and then forwarding an argument about why it should be evaluated in that way.
- I competed in policy debate at Ruston High School.
- I did some coaching and judging and debating while in college at Tulane, where I received a Masters in Policy Economics.
- I work as a research associate at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
- I prefer a good policy debate with an intensive case debate and relevant disadvantages over a critical debate. See the Kritik section if you are thinking about running one.
- Sportsmanship: Debate is a platform by which competitors mutually enter into an academic environment to pursue education. If you do not respect your competitors, your speaker points will reflect it. With that being said, I am open to debates about what the academic environment should look like.
- Communication: It is the job of the debater to effectively convey their point. It is the debater's responsibility for making sure that the judge clearly understands their points. I do not enjoy yelling "Clear," but I will do it 3 times before I stop flowing entirely. Likewise, your speaker points will suffer for each time I have to intervene. Because debate is contingent upon good communication, I do not want to be added to the email chain or to be given evidence to follow along with as this defeats the purpose for actually speaking (if the tournament is in-person). I make exceptions if the tournament is online, as poor internet quality and natural technological hiccups can result in me missing arguments that would have otherwise been effectively communicated.
- Prep: Flash time does count as prep time. Clearly say when you are starting and ending prep. I will penalize teams that appear to be doing prep after they have ended prep.
- Speaker Points: Speaker points are contingent upon a variety of factors including: clarity, road-mapping, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, effective participation in CX, a constructive speech, and a rebuttal, merits of your strategy, and presentation.
- Flowing: I evaluate the debate entirely off of my flow. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are clear enough for me to flow you. If it is not on my flow, do not expect me to "fill in the blanks." If there is evidence in contention, I will call for it after the round to see what it actually says. If the tournament is in-person, I do not want to be added to your email chain, if it is online, ask me for my email and please add me.It is in your best interests to accurately represent the author's argument.
- Evidence: I reward teams who use quality evidence over a hot jumble of buzzwords. If a card is in question, I will call for it after the round. I give credit to an author's credentials and I think you should too. I should not have to read un-highlighted parts of your evidence to understand it. I have no tolerance for clipping, or jumping around parts of a card unannounced. If you mark a card, you better have it clearly marked on your document.
- Decision Making: The way I judge the debate is entirely up to you. I will default to whatever I am told to do. Therefore, it is important to win framing arguments if you expect to win the round.
- I prefer the Aff actually have a plan or advocacy statement.
- T is always a potential voter, but the negative must show an actual violation of the definition and prove in-round abuse for me to actually want to vote for it. With that being said, if the other team drops it entirely, of course I will vote on T.
- The more specific the better.
- Must have an alternative
- Alt must solve
- Must win Framework debate if you expect to win the K
- Must prove why thinking and acting are opportunity costs. If your alternative does not involve an action, but instead is something that can and does take place solely in the mind, then there better be a reason why you can't think in a different way to fulfill the alt while also doing a policy action to solve the Aff. In other words, I hold the negative to a high threshold on permutation debates.
- Although I ran and debated against Kritiks a lot in high school, I am honestly not that big of a fan of them. Run them at your own risk: I hold Kritiks to a high threshold both on the link debate and the alt solvency debate. I am fair though, if your opponents do not prove why such a high threshold should be imposed and you are winning these debates along with the framework debate, you will win the K.
- Must have a purpose
- Must prove why conventional policy debate doesn't work to represent your point and why I should value your point
- If you break from the conventional platform of debate only to be funny, expect to lose. With that being said, I think performances can serve a vital role in advocacy if it is sincere
- Counter Plans:
- I love a good theory debate.
- I also love coherent Neg strats meaning that DAs that link to the CP will hurt you.
- Read CP text slowly and clearly enough for me to actually flow it (like seriously, if I could bold this anymore, I would)
- I seriously doubt your one terrible card below your generic CP text makes it all that much better than the 8 minute 1AC.
- Please have current Uniqueness cards
- Not every impact has to be nuclear war or extinction, but I will evaluate them as they are presented.
- I love impact calc debates
Hello Competitors and Coaches,
My Name is Cassandra "Cassie" Rebeor (She/Her) and I am a former competitor and coach with a love of the sport/community. I competed for a year trying my hand at almost everything in California and then coached for 2 years in Louisiana the first as a travel coach who mostly did on-the-road prepping and cleaning up big issues before rounds. My second year I was a head coach while also being a college senior specializing in teaching LD, Policy, PF, and speech events and all the fun team management thigs.
I mostly specialize in LD and Policy Debate but am a jack of all trades and am able to judge it all and judge it well.
As for Debate events, I like a roadmap and signposting; PLEASE signpost. I don't adore speed, but I can listen to it and flow it. Be strategic about it and please ask your opponent their comfort level with it and respect it. If you decide on speed in any round, not just mine it is the competitor's responsibility to make sure the judge can understand you, take a breathe, speak clearly, have fun and do your best.
"Write my ballot for me" meaning you tell me why you won and we will see if we agree. Please, weigh impacts and give voters. Otherwise, I will create my own voters, and you potentially may not appreciate that. If it is not on the flow, I will not look to it. That being said, I will not extend things for you. If you want it to be important, it needs to be extended all the way through all speeches you give. If you want to run theory, either put it in a shell or ensure that you talk about all the important parts of the theory. If it isn't impacted or accompanied by how I should change my vote, it has potentially wasted round time and created unneeded confusion.
Be respectful to each other, to me, and the people you are talking about in your cases. This event is a tradition and history heavy when you are disrespectful you are not only representing yourself badly, and your team, and those who came before you including myself. Also, unnecessary yelling is not really something I vibe with. I get it, passion is good, passion is awesome and great to see but let's attempt to keep it at a lower volume.
Also, I DO NOT DISCOLE in round. I will give feedback if there is time and the tournament says it is allowed, but either way, my ballots will have solid feedback that you and your coach can work off of together.