I used to write in-depth feedback on ballots, but I feel like nobody was reading them, so now I will try to give an in-depth oral critique with minimal or no written RFD on this website.

I did four years of high school Lincoln-Douglas, during which time I qualified for both CFL and SDA national tournaments and made it to the tenth round in the latter. I am currently debating in both NPDA and CEDA for NYU. I'm from a traditional circuit and thus am most experienced with framework debate, but I attended and succeeded in many national circuit tournaments and am perfectly able to follow progressive strategies.

I would hesitantly describe myself as a tab ras judge with idiosyncrasies, which I have attempted to explain in detail on this page. I wrote this paradigm mostly with LD in mind, but it's basically applicable to all debate events to the extent that I would be compelled to judge them.
I presume truth-testing unless you should decide to argue otherwise.

Flex prep: is encouraged.

Kritiks: I have evolved somewhat in my fondness for K debate. Increasingly I see a lot of very continental philosophy-type critics which use obfuscation and poor definitions to do linguistic sorcery. This is probably not the most helpful thing; I am open to critical methods which reject the paradigms of analytic reasoning, but they shouldn't be propped up by unclear definitions and intellectual dishonesty.

With that said, Time Cube is in a category of its own. I am a human being who enjoys fun, so I will be happy to judge meme cases in general. Run at your own risk, because I think they tend to collapse under real scrutiny for the aforementioned reasons.

Literature: My knowledge of the topic lit is very limited. Speak about it as though you were speaking to a layman, because you are.

Philosophy: I love philosophy and metaethics, and I am strongly preferential to a framework with a priori justifications.
With that said, I do not want to hear your pedantry about the difference between justice and morality! Furthermore, I tend to find arguments distinguishing governmental obligations from moral obligations very, very unconvincing (if the two are in conflict, it's very difficult for me to weigh government duty over moral duty, Thomas Hobbes can eat my shorts).
I love the meta-debate of epistemic modesty vs. confidence, and often use such considerations to decide close rounds. I tend to lean toward confidence when it's not mentioned, but I can easily be swung in favor of modesty if a debater says so.
Skep is a hard sell. You will have to blow my mind to persuade me to vote for you on skep, since I would assume that skep makes the vote arbitrary...

Speaker points: I judge speaks predominantly based on style and rhetoric. Do not confuse this for the traditional LD paradigm which demands that every debater talk like William Jennings Bryan or something like that. You can be fast and smart without sacrificing the beautiful rhetorical flourishes that make debate fun. Humor and entertainment goes a long way toward achieving this end.
I would rather be a point fairy than a miser.

Spreading: Creates a high barrier to entry for national circuit debate, but I am generally in favor because it allows for more educational and enjoyable rounds. It is in bad form to spread against debaters you know cannot handle spreading.

Timing: I can time if you want me to. If you do not ask me to, I will not.

Topicality: Not my favorite, but I presume that it is a voter as a procedural rule unless this assumption is challenged on the flow.

Theory: I don't object to theory on principle, but I think the proliferation of frivolous theory in Lincoln-Douglas is a negative impact on education and fun. There are certainly times when it's justified or necessary, but only insofar as the opponent has skewed the debate so drastically that running theory is the only viable way to win.
I tend to be pretty hostile to research burden arguments. Vro, you don't have to know every minute detail of whatever obscure advocacy or framework they're running, as long as they make it clear in constructive and cross-ex--even if it's new to you, there's always a kritikal response or counterplan. I am afraid that the ubiquity of research burden arguments will deter debaters from gaining esoteric knowledge in the peripheries of the topic, thereby sacrificing educational value for fairness. Basically, I'd rather see you run Mao K against an unfamiliar advocacy than research burden theory.

TLDR: I'm ok with speed and pretty much everything else.

Judge for Dallastown

Etiquette stuff:

1 .I time debate and my time is the official time but you are welcome to time yourself. Flex prep is fine as long as your opponent(s) agree.

2. Aggressive is fine as is shouting but if you are a racist or sexist then I will probably deduct points.

3. I don't care if you spread as long as you are articulate -you are at a debate not an auction.

In Debate
I really like empirically-supported arguments. Framework debate is also good...don't assume that I know the philosophy to which you are referring...it's part of YOUR job to explain it.

All that being said, I do like a good solid traditional debate with lots of evidence.

Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous Debate are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast, or using undefined jargon - even common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative - you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.

In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.

In Extempt Debate, you only have at most two minutes - keep your evidence to statistics and use your own arguments - you really don't have enough time for anything else - which is the point. And avoid the temptation to try to fit 5 minutes of speech into a two-minute speech - if you are speaking too fast to take notes, you are by definition saying nothing noteworthy.

For speech events - clarity is the most important part of any speech - not just clarity of speech, but clarity of meaning and clarity of purpose. If you move, move for a purpose. If you speak oddly or with a heavy accent that is barely comprehensible, it still needs to clearly communicate something; the emotions of the phrase we can't understand, at the very least.

Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters or final speech why you think you won, but no mic drop.

Hi friend

My name is Nevin and my pronouns are they/them.

This paradigm is for LD mostly.

Sparknotes

(1) Please give me your case (if possible before the round) nevinekara@gmail.com

(2) Be super big picture and weigh (why should u win and they lose)

(3) I like non T stuff, Ks, and performance. But dumb down the Ks and make sure the performance makes sense.

(4) T and theory are fine as long as u aren’t rude about it.

(5) don’t be messy

On speed/speaking

(1) Email me your case, flash me your case, make a speech drop, or something. I just need to see a case.

(2) I disassociate when people spread sometimes so make sure that what you are saying is in the doc or slow down when you want me to hear something specific.

(3) If you don’t read something that is in the doc, edit it and send a new copy.

(4) Please don’t yell or talk aggressively.

Aff

(1) Do whatever you want, but make sure everything you are doing has a purpose.

(2) If you want to read something nontopical or anti topical, a good chunk of the 1AC should be explaining why you are doing that and make sure you don’t lose that explanation in the 1AR and 2AR.

(3) If you aren’t topical, don’t pretend to be. But if you just have an interesting interpretation of the resolution that isn’t common, be prepared to defend why your interpretation is good for debate under your own standards and theirs.

CX

(1)) Ask strategic questions or forfeit the rest of your time (no penalty to speaker points).

(2) CX is binding. No take backsies.

(3) flex prep is NOT binding as is preferably only for clarification.

Ks

(1) I like Ks. I don’t like when people kick Ks. Neither of those things affects how I vote (unless it’s a white boy reading wilderson).

(2) please be super big picture and dumb down the K. Not for your opponent, for me.

(3) If you don’t understand the thesis of your K, maybe don’t read it.

(4) I like identity Ks. Just make sure the links are clear. They can all be generic links if you want but I prefer that at least a few are specific to the round and what your opponent did or said wrong. It’s always more fun that way.

Performance

(1) I did this :D

(2) reading a 30 second poem does not necessarily make your case performative. A big part of performance (in my opinion) is gut checking.

(3) make sure to be super big picture about why your performance is necessary and why the ballot/judge’s support is key

(4) Don’t be afraid to divorce yourself from debate norms.

(5)Your opponent might try to out tech you. Don’t let those bastards win! Spend the majority of your time in all your speeches contextualizing your case and explaining why an Aff/Neg ballot matters.

(6) point out when they are doing things that are harmful and make sure to say something like “vote them down for this” or “they should lose because of this”

(7) don’t read against a novice unless they deserve it (i.e. they are known to be racist or something)

DAs

(1) This is just a fancy contention, so I refuse to flow them on separate sheets of paper.

(2) Make sure to weigh. Extinction doesn’t outweigh just because you or your card without a warrant says so.

CPs

(1) Stupid CPs make me laugh. The others hurt my brain.

(2) Don’t accidentally do a CP that links into a criticism you make of the AC (I wish I didn’t have to say this) If you contradict yourself and your opponent calls you out, I won’t let you kick out of your CP to resolve the contradiction because I will consider that an offensive argument for the Aff

T

(1) Make sure the violation is clear and specific

(2) Make sure the shell functions as a unit (its just tacky if I can tell you copy pasted parts of the shell from other shells)

(3) I don’t mind if you read T just to waste time (this is NOT how I feel about theory shells though)

(4) Don’t read T against a performance unless you are going to go all in on it and are prepared to defend why a topical world is a good one for 6 minutes in the NR.

Theory

(1) Don’t read frivolous theory or tricks. We both know what that means.

(2) Don’t be afraid to read a shell in front of me. If you have a good abuse story and some bomb standards, I will easily vote for you.

(3) Don’t spread the whole thing and really try to give a good 30 second big picture overview at the end.

(4) If you are winning on the standards debate, you win the round. You don’t have to extend every part of a shell to win with me as a judge.

(5) I like RVIs they make me laugh and I enjoy voting on them when someone drops or mishandles them

(6) don't read theory or T in front of me if your opponent is lay or from a small school.

Other stuff

(1) Be nice and don’t be racist

(2) Keep your own time

I enjoy a good debate and require you to be respectful of your opponent at all times. Speak your argument clearly and get your message across. I am fine with speed as long as it is coherent... I must understand what you are saying. I will not vote on a presumption and require solid information.

I am a Public School Administrator with two teenagers but they do not debate... with anyone but their mom :)

I love to see children grow in the events and show their talents/knowledge. Good Luck!

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judges at all times. I will not tolerate inappropriate behavior during speech and debate rounds.

Debate

Always be sure to ask your judge and your opponent if we are ready before you begin a speech.

Remember that presenting a clear argument takes precedence over speed.

If you are in the middle of a sentence and time is up (either during a constructive or cross-examination), I will allow you to finish your sentence.

I look for a well-developed case that includes clear identification of the value, value criterion, contentions, points of clash, and voting issues.

You may use your electronic device to time yourself, but keep in mind that your judge is the official timekeeper in the round. Please be sure that your device is in silent mode.

For virtual tournaments please mute yourself if you are not speaking. You can unmute during your speeches and cross-examination periods.

Speech

I will be happy to provide you with time signals. Please let me know before you begin the specific time signals that you would like (i.e.., 5 down, fist at 10, etc.)

Most importantly, have fun!

For virtual tournaments please keep yourself muted when you are not performing.

Please refrain from texting and playing on your phone during other students' performances.

World Schools Debate

As World Schools Debate is not the same as policy or Lincoln-Douglas Debate, please refrain from spreading during the round. Your speech should be delivered at a conversational pace. Be sure to make eye contact and deliver your speech instead of reading word for word from your paper. World Schools Debate focuses on both the quality of the arguments and the quality of speech delivery.

Please make sure that your POIs are limited to 15 seconds each. If you do not wish to entertain an opponent's POI at a given time, please do so respectfully. Use your discretion about when to address a POI, but please make sure that you are not rejecting EVERY POI attempt during your speech. There are no POIs during the first and last minute of each constructive speech. POIs are also not permitted during reply speeches.

You may use a cell phone (placed in airplane mode) to time yourselves during the round. The judge is the official timekeeper. NSDA does not allow the use of computers during the round, so please make sure that all computers are away.

I'm a tab judge, I'm never going to intervene or complete arguments for the debaters in front of me. What's made important in the round is what I'll make important on my ballot. I'm fine with speed, as long as the debaters articulate. I understand K and rhetorical arguments, and am willing to vote for whatever makes the most logical sense in the round, regardless of morals (i.e., I'll vote for an argument that kills more people if the debater can tell me why that makes the most sense).

I know debate theory and will always point out an error in link chain, though I won't vote there unless opponent also points it out.

I like voters, clash points, and world comparison.

I have been our school's coach/administrator of our speech and debate team for many years. I am also an English teacher.

When judging debate, I would like to hear every word, to follow every argument. I do not like fast-talking because it leaves me guessing what I heard. I would like the two teams/two sides to listen to each other and ask questions and rebut in ways that show good listening. I enjoy clash. I enjoy when clash brings a debate round to greater levels of thinking and crisper points being made on each side. I like when the teams/sides help me, the judge, better see my way to an RFD. (Of course, I have to agree, but I enjoy when sides/teams state in logical and intelligent ways why they should win and show when doing so that they have a solid grasp on what just happened in the round.)

When judging speech, I appreciate the commitment that students show in constructing a well-organized speech and preparing to perform it. I appreciate the energy, pathos, honesty, charm, intelligence, drive to connect with an audience, and all-around skills of a well-delivered speech.

Regarding literary interpretation, I am an English teacher; I love it all.

Background: I’m a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Gender Studies & Communication, and I did both LD and policy (with a brief stint in PF) for Dallastown High School in Pennsylvania. I competed on both traditional and progressive circuits, so I’m pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. However, as a competitor, I mostly ran non-t affs, soft-left affs, and kritiks.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email chain: emiwhite@sas.upenn.edu

* I care a lot about respect and safety in-round. Debate has a tendency to be a really toxic/hostile environment sometimes, so please don't contribute to that. Similarly, if at any point during the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, feel free to stop the round and let me know. I will not tolerate debaters being egregiously disrespectful or inconsiderate of their opponents. This applies to actions done knowingly that make the round inaccessible (e.g. not flashing your case when spreading, not giving content warnings for sensitive topics, etc.) as well as how you speak to/about your opponent (e.g. excessively interrupting them or being overly condescending). TLDR: just be nice y'all, it's not that hard.

**If you spread, EMAIL ME AND YOUR OPPONENT YOUR CASE. Ideally this applies to prewritten analytics as well (or really anything that is typed out and sendable). I cannot stress this enough! If you don’t, I’ll probably dock speaks and be a much less happy judge. I like to think I’m pretty good at flowing at high speeds, but there’s always the chance that I miss something if I don’t have a copy of it, especially since audio can cut out on virtual platforms.

Kritiks: I love them! This was about 80% of what I did in debate, so I love seeing a good K round. However, a bad K debate is probably my least favorite thing to watch, so don’t think that I’ll vote for any kritik no matter what - you need to explain your position clearly, especially your alt.

Non-T affs: I read these for most of my junior and senior year, so I’m very comfortable rejecting/reinterpreting the topic as long as you tell me why I should and what your aff does instead. As far as T vs. a non-t aff — It’s not my favorite thing to see (I personally think reading a K or counter-method is more interesting and creative), but if it’s what you’re good at, go for it. aff still has to explain where they get offense and why topicality is bad, neg has to justify why the aff’s non-topical position is uniquely harmful/abusive, not just why defending the topic is good generally.

Phil/framework: I’m familiar with the basics (deont, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) more so than any other FW authors (especially really obscure ones). I’ll gladly judge other phil - I just may not have any experience with them, so you’ll have to explain it clearly and weigh well. If you could give a quick overview of the theory in non-jargony language during your 1ar/2nr that would also be super helpful. Know your position well and clarify exactly what offense does and doesn’t count under your framework, and you should be fine.

Theory: I generally find it to be unnecessary and used to make the round inaccessible. If there is legitimately no other way for you to respond to your opponent and/or they've done something really really abusive, then read theory. Otherwise, be creative and use logic to tell me why their argument doesn’t make sense - don’t rely on tricky wordings or surprise interps to get my ballot. Also slow down a bit and explain - I will miss something if you rattle off 3 standards in 5 seconds with minimal warranting.

Tricks: I'm ok with one or two spikes in an aff, but as far as a completely tricks case - please just don’t. I will not be amused, I will dock speaks, and you probably won’t get my ballot.