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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no preference for whether you sit or stand. 

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

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

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

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

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

egreerdebate@gmail.com

Overall Thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T (vs. Policy Affs)

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

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

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

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

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

CPs/DAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ks (vs. Policy Affs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Affs and T/FW

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

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

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

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

Tips for Higher Speaker Points

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

-Send docs before ending prep.

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

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

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

-Don't read cards written by undergraduates.

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

LD Paradigm

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

General-

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

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

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

· I weigh feasibility over impacts.

Framework-

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

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

Kritiks-

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

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

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

Theory-

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

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

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

CPs-

· I lean aff on conditionality in LD.

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

· I dislike agent counterplans strongly.

Miscellaneous-

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

· Ask before the round if you have questions.

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

Hi, my name is John. I use any pronouns, and I debated for 4 years in LD and congress at Cherokee HS, 45 minutes north of Atlanta.

If there's anything in this paradigm that you don't understand or that wasn't covered, let me know before the round in person, by texting me (+1 470 232-4546), or by sending an email (johntpeterson355@gmail.com). good luck!

If you send a doc, cc me: johntpeterson355@gmail.com. I'm going to delete your doc at the end of the round.

I'm gonna keep it real with you, i've gotten a lot dumber since I stopped debating. i've regressed. you need to explain complicated stuff really slowly. treat me like a parent judge if you run advanced phil. i need to understand and hear your argument in order to flow it. my ability to understand speed is... a lot worse now than it was. that being said i'll flow most things as long as they're done well. being racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/etc. is penalized with an L. **this includes the sources you use! i will notice if you cite a hate group or hate publication. also flex prep is cool

do lots of weighing and talk at a reasonable speed ????

I will start by letting you know I am a parent judge with no debate experience.

I do not enjoy spreading and often can get lost when a debater spreads.

I enjoy a spirited, but respectful cross ex.

As I face the debaters I prefer the Aff on my left and the Neg on my right.

Make sure you clearly outline your case. If you get deep into philosphy or obsure philosophers be prepared to provide clear explanations.

Things that I look for are evenly paced delivery, good enunciation, and proper management of the time you are allotted.

I do not allow for the conversion of prep time to cross ex.

As this article outlines, I come down on the side of not wanting to listen to an auctioneer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ifyoucanunderstandthisyoumightbeahighschooldebater-1518021742?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

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

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

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