Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

Roadmaps and signposting are important to help me organize your argumentation and not having them will only hurt my ability to follow your points.

I despise spreading, and you can expect me to take points off if you spread all of your arguments. If I cannot understand what you're saying, I will not flow your arguments. Branching off of this, If a contention has 7 subpoints, I'll miss two or three in the middle. Focus on delivering quality arguments and analysis over simple quantity.

Eye contact and actual persuasion are critical to speaker points and winning the debate. If you never look up from your notes or computer, then to me you're no better a public speaker than a audiobook. Furthermore, evidence is not an argument in it of itself. Evidence should SUPPORT an argument. Don't just read me a statistic and expect me to make links for you. Tell me about why the evidence matters and the impact it has on the round.

To me, rebuttal is where debates are won or lost. If you can refute an opponents argument itself (rather than just clashing statistics) that will earn you major points. Crossfires should be used to tear down the logic of an opponents argument or undermine their evidence/examples. Don't just use CX as a opportunity to re-explain your own case in the form of questions.

Finally, attacking evidence is necessary but not sufficient to win an argument. Focus on the core of the argument itself, rather than trying to peel it apart card by card. It is not only stronger from a rhetorical point of view, but easier to flow.

Civility during your rounds is very important. Rudeness and disrespecting your opponent is the easiest way to lose points. Also, don't lie about evidence. I don't want to have to request your cards, but I will if I feel there has been any form of manipulation or other dishonesty.

Hey my name is Michael, email: mcasas1289@yahoo.com

Experience; 3 years of High School POLICY debate ( University High School )

PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT I AM A POLICY JUDGE WHO JUST BEGAN JUDGING LD

Rutgers University - Newark

EXPLAIN what I should vote for you and make it clear. Once you make your point MOVE ON, please don't repeat yourself.

Organize your arguments. Line-Line is nice too.

Spreading is acceptable but be clear. I will call out clear when you are unclear TWICE. After that, I will just stop writing.

i dont like severance affs

I'm pretty liberal so you can any type of argument as long as you can convince me

Critical Affs are cool, explain why we should start with your point and their impacts. (framing preferred with K Aff's)

All Neg Strats are acceptable but please present them clearly so i know when you're starting a new argument.

Theory is beautiful but make it clear to the judge.

Procedural Fairness over all unless you fail to show me it is.

Hi everyone! My name is Lavanya Chandrashekar and I am the parent of a competitor, I am conflicted with anyone from Blair Academy.

Here are 5 things to keep in mind:

1) I am a parent judge who does not understand progressive strategies, in fact, this paradigm was written by my son.

2) I will not vote on an argument which I do not understand, so please explain your complex philosophy.

3) I will vote on who best tried to convince me of their side, therefore, ethos is as important as evidence.

4) I debated in British Parliamentary style for 8+ years in college and in high school, so I will judge you based on your argument structure, so do not think that I will vote for the person who "sounds" the best.

5) Spreading is not something that is encouraged. If you speak too fast I will call slow loudly and clearly and as many times as needed until I can understand you (every time I must call slow will make me doc 0.5 speaker points from you)

I view debate as an educational and fun activity so would recommend anyone who is debating with me as your judge to please not force me to adjudicate a debate that I do not understand. Do not spread or read complex theories without explaining them to me.

I was an APDA (college parliamentary) debater from 2014-18. Between 2016 and 2022, I coached PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and some other speech events.

I am affiliated with duPont Manual High School as the head speech and debate coach. I used to debate college LD, so I am familiar with the general format of most all debate. I always say that CX>LD>PF>CON...if that's not agreeable with you, then that's unfortunate, but that's just how my hierarchy Debate chain/list works. I respect all debate divisions, so please do not misunderstand

1. I enjoy K Debate, especially if it gives insightful

Anthro K’s are not as convincing to me.

2. Do not use abbreviated jargon yet because I am still learning how to apply jargon to my RFD. For example, use CONDITIONAL instead of CONDO, or Topical(ity) instead of T, or PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTER PLANS BAD instead of PICS… Sorry, but it will make the ultimate difference because I will be able to follow my flow/your narrative.

3. I am a flow judge.

4. I will call clear if I cannot understand you, and I won’t take off of speaker points after the first time.

5. Please stand to MY RIGHT side because I am deaf in my left ear. SO, if you are facing me, please spread or speak standing to the left side of the room. I will always try to sit in the center of the debate.

6. I have had experience judging CX at UPenn, PF at several national tournaments as well as in Chengdu, China, and I used to debate in LD in high school and at IU for a year. I have been coaching at duPont Manual HS in Louisville, KY for 4 years.

7. Theory Debate…I will deal with it, however, it makes me feel inferior or confused or . It just might take me a bit longer to articulate an RFD, so don’t ty and an endearing candidness - it's so adorable and

8. I love progressive LD, and spreading is fine with me.

9. LOUD, CLEAR, and SIGN POST along the way. Also, give me an off time road map before each speech, please. Traditional debate is wonderful too; however, I DO look for SOLVENCY AND COUNTER PLANS are also valued by me.

10. For PF, I value both long term and short impacts, but I need the debaters to weigh the round and tell me what i prefer in the end. Make it very clear to me what your voters are. For LD, I need you to uphold your framework and give me the Roll of the Ballot. Make it very clear, and repeat it for me so I am sure to catch it/them.11. I love topicality; an overview

I can take speed, but please be clear. I encourage progressive debate, so I will not dock speaks for calling clear. Therefore, I will call clear until I can understand you. Please take the time to adapt if I call clear.
I base speaker points on several different factors. This includes clarity of speaking, presentation, projection, and the ability to debate strategically. Impact your arguments and tell me why they matter. Pick the most important arguments and tell me the reasons I should vote for it. Also, signposting is a must.

If you have any questions please contact me at 502-572-4635 or erica.cooper@jefferson.kyschools.us.

I debated for four years in Varsity LD and a few tournaments in policy mostly on the Nebraska circuit and at some smaller bid tournaments in the midwest. I attended two summers of VBI.

It's been around 2 years since I last debated so keep that in mind lol. To be honest I was pretty much an average debater in high school.

Important points:

1. Speed - From 1-10 where 10 is TOC Policy level, I can do 8 if you are very clear. I will yell clear and/or slow in round if you are too fast/unclear. Slow down on tag lines. Pause after finishing a card. Please include me in the email chain!

2. Ks - I really enjoy them and I mostly debated these in HS. I have some familiarity with Deleuze, Afropess, and Baudrillard, but after two years of not debating, I've forgotten a lot. However, be sure to explain your arguments well in your later speeches if you are getting very technical and pomo. If your argument is pre-fiat then warrant it. I prefer these arguments to be topical.

3. Policy Arguments - I am fine with these but I prefer K arguments. Be sure to do impact weighing.

4. Phil/Framework Arguments - I'm fine with these and have lots of experience debating with/against them. Enumerate your justifications. I used to think these arguments were squirrelly but they can be cool/fun if you explain it well.

5. Theory/T - I'm okay at evaluating these but if you are exclusively a theory debater then don't pref me high; I'm more receptive to Theory/T if the in-round abuse is clear and non-frivolous. Slow down when reading the violation. I don't default to RVIs. I default to competing interpretations.

6. Tech - I'm mostly tech over truth, and I will vote on a prioris and the like but my brightline for these is that they have to have a warrant/cannot be a one sentence assertion. Be reasonable.

7. In-round stuff - Don't be oppressive. I will dock speaks heavily. If your opponent makes that as a reason to drop you, I will. Be nice during the entire round.

8. Extensions need to have explanations and cannot be one sentence.

9. Speaks -

< 27 - You were a bad person.

27 - 28 - You were below average in the field.

28 - 29 - You were pretty good, have a chance for outrounds.

29 - 29.5 - You were really good, high chance of making outrounds.

29.6 - 30 - Awesome debating, high chance of late out rounds.

--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: hcurtis@albany.edu

--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.

T/Theory

--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.

DA/Counterplan/LARPy Stuff

--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.

K/Framework

--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.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. Cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. I strongly prefer that you use Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I prefer to devote my attention to the content of your speeches rather than focusing on watching the clock, but I can time if needed. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters use it when it isn't necessary and thereby it just serves overcomplicate the round. Please don't do this.If you planning to run dense or tricky theory,you should strike me. However, occasionally theory is necessary to ensure a fair, equitable round (i.e. - your opponent purposely presents a case which is non-topical, etc). I strongly prefer paragraph theory to block theory if you are in such a situation.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I won't fill in the gaps in your explanation/argumentation.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are mean-spirited or otherwise deny the humanity of others. This should go without saying, but this is still a school-sponsored activity, so if you wouldn't raise your hand and say it during school, don't do it here either.

Brief Summary:

I went to La Salle and debated in LD for three years and debated in Policy when I was a senior. When I did LD I started out as a more traditional debater but became a bit more progressive through my career. And my time in Policy sorta desensitized me to atypical debate forms, meaning I will judge pretty much anything. I know that's not super helpful. 

Policy background means I love, and I mean love, good impact calc. Mainly, just focus on making well-warranted and impacted arguments, and proving why your impacts are more important than your opponent's. Also, don't be offensive. Any sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, generally discriminatory, etc. rhetoric will probably make me vote you down. We're all here to enjoy debate and the education we're supposed to get from it. Don't ruin it with offensive shit. 

Also. I judge with the mindset of tech over truth. I only judge the arguments that are made in round. I won't infer arguments on behalf of you or your opponent, no matter how intuitive. If your opponent doesn't address an argument of yours, regardless of how ridiculous, I will assume that argument is true. That said, I hate voting for dumb things. So please, please, please address your opponent's arguments. 

Speed is fine. Clarity is more important than slowing down. If you spread, make sure you spread clearly and still sorta enunciate. If your spreading becomes a hum, I'll probably be irritated. Also, slow down for taglines. That shouldn't really need to be said. I'll say clear if you're being unclear. 

I don't flow cross-ex, but if you reference part of cross-ex in a subsequent speech it'll get you hella ethos in my book, so def use that. I prefer when cx is used strategically to undermine your opponent's position, but if you need to ask clarification questions that's fine too. Don't be rude though. You may disagree with your opponent's argument, but I don't wanna see ad hominem stuff. I'd rather see you dismantle the argument. Also, I'm cool with flex prep. 

A little more info:

So I did LD for three years and I saw a lot of weird atypical frameworks and a lot of completely "normal" traditional-style frameworks. I will vote for either so long as they are well justified. This means that you prove why x-weighing system is better than y-weighing system. If you just say that x-weighing system does z-good thing, that isn't really a justification. You need to directly compare to your opponent's framework (unless they drop FW but that would be dumb so don't rely on it). Counterplans are fine, but you're gonna have to prove that they're mutually exclusive. Same with K's. (See policy background above.) Read a Disad if you want...but a DA is basically just a neg contention, so reading it with a separate DA format in LD would be kinda weird. 

The Framework debate should be handled as a weighing system in a way and a moral lens in the other way. I'm not crazy about deon if it's not well-warranted and I find util to be a lot more intuitive and easy to justify...but if you justify a deontological framework well, and defend it well against your opponent, I will probably pick you up on framework. Justifications and warrants and impacts are key. Also. Framework is how your impacts have to be evaluated and weighed against your opponent. Which means if you lose framework and you can't link your impacts into your opponent's framework you're probably SOL. Which is why framework clash is so, so important. Like, even if your values are both Morality you both probably have different conceptualizations of morality, so just because you say your values are the same doesn't mean framework is a wash. Clash. Or you'll probably lose. 

Contention level stuff is gonna be really dependent on your warrants. Policy has conditioned me to care more about cards than about analytics, but if you have a killer analytic and it dismantles your opponent's warrants, I'll probably notice and be impressed. So long as the logic and warrants are clear I probably won't have any issues with your contentions. In terms of impact calc, just be sure to link into the framework that won the framework debate and prove how you can achieve the value in the round better than your opponent. 

K's and critical arguments are fine. Just make sure you clearly articulate what the world of the alternative looks like and contextualize it with relation to the weighing system of the round. If you don't articulate an alternative, I'm going to flow the "kritik" as a disad. Because a K without an alt is really just a disad. Make sure you clearly articulate the alternative and explain why the mindset shift to that of the alt is preferable to SQuo. 

TL;DR weigh your impacts well and make sure your arguments are warranted and don't say offensive shit. Do these things better than your opponent and I'll probably pick you up. 

I am a novice judge at local tournaments at the high school level. I have judged a total of 3 tournaments.

Lincoln- Douglas Paradigm

I will not judge progressive debates. I prefer a traditional debate speed with clear reasoning and arguments. I would prefer to avoid debates that are heavy in philosophy and theory. I would request that debaters keep time and prep time along with me. I personally place most weight on value and value criterion. It is essential that arguments are well supported and clear to understand. Since I am not technically skilled as a judge, I will score based on who best communicates the most logical arguments.

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

This paradigm is old, I don’t coach or attend tournaments anymore because I am in medical school.

TLDR: I did debate in high school, coached debate and taught at debate camps for 6 years. My last debate round judged/observed was in 2023, so go only 60-75% of your speed if spreading and make sure you are clear. Read good arguments, keep it original.

—————

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies with honors.

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. Please remove it from the case/docs. There is impact to reading “evidence” that makes anti-Black violence a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS. Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this

PF

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is an academic speaking activity.

For LD: Prefer traditional LD debate format but open to hear progressive forms, highly discourage spreading since I won't be able to understand you so I won't be able to judge for you or vote for you!

Fair, clear and respectful works great.

Email: jgizzy96@gmail.com

Background: I debated for four years for Newburgh Free Academy. I was a policy and LD debate. I primarily did policy for my first two years and LD in my last two years, both circuit style debate. This is my fifth year coaching/judging for the Lexington Debate. I was both a critical and traditional debater so feel free to run whatever you like. Speed is 100% fine with me just be clear.I am currently a graduate student in New York City getting my Master's in Biological Sciences, with the intentions of attending Medical School next fall. I have been judging debate since 2014 in both Policy and LD.

My Theory on Theory:
In the past, I have viewed theory pretty negatively. I'm not the biggest fan of it, but I will vote on it if you keep these things in mind:

1. If you say that you should have access to an RVI, tell me what constitutes an RVI. I generally do not accept "I meets" as a reason to access an RVI, but feel free to change my mind.

2. If the opposing debater is giving me a bunch of "I meets," annihilating the standards, or doing anything else to take out a significant part of the argument, I am not going to penalize them for simply not having a counter interp.

3. I have had tons of rounds in which debater N has a theoretical objection to the 1AC. Debater A then responds with a counter interp in the 1AR. By then end of the round, I have offense that links to both interps, and no reason to prefer one shell/standard over the other. Do not leave me in this position. Find ways to layer the theory debate and explain how standards interact.

4. No new 2AR theory.

5. Tell me why your theoretical objection comes before another

Specifics:

Kritiks: The Kritik is by far my favorite position in Policy and LD debate. Know what you are talking about. The explanation of the K needs to be done outside of of the author: for example, if you are running D&G, don't drop the term rhizomatic expansion and think that I know what that means. Explain it. Nothing gets me upset than a K team that drops terms and does not explain how those terms interact with the argument. I hate boring and generic links, do you work! Make sure to have a link scenario. The alternative, I feel is the most important mechanism of the K. Explain to me why the alternative is the most important part of the K and why this is the only way to accomplish the plan/case/WHATEVER.

Disadvantages: I don’t mind a few DAs here and there just don’t over kill it! Please if you are going to run politics don’t make it ridiculous and make sure your internal link is new and not something from four years ago.

Counterplans: Counterplans are counterplans I’ll vote on it if it’s there.

Overall:

Truth vs. Tech--I will evaluate arguments based on the flow and will do very little work to imagine some "embedded clash" that isn't there. But at the end of the debate I will decide each argument by asking who I feel won it based solely on the arguments presented in the round.

Strat: Establish your position/advocacy. Link. Impact. Weigh extensively. Tell me why I should vote for you. If you do not tell me what to do with a given point "x", I will not vote off it unless there is literally nothing else for me to vote off of. Do not assume that I will auto extend drops, or that I will impact/link/weigh cross applications for you. It's your job to tell me why you win, explain it to me like you would explain it to your parents! Act like I don’t know (even though I do) *this will also result in better speaker points*. If something is important to my ballot, please tell me so, and spend time on it don’t glance over it. * I am 100% okay with any kind of case. Do what you like this is your show!

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. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

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.

SHORTCUT:

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

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

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 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).

Do not use profanity in round. I will lower speaker points if you do.

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.

I am a parent and a lay judge​. That being said, I'm only familiar with traditional LD.

If you're a strict circuit debater, please strike me or plan on going lay. ​As far as traditional debate goes:

Things I like:

● Weighing your impacts clearly

● Full extensions - Tell me why what you're extending matters.

● Structured speeches/Signposting

Things I dislike:

● Being abusive in CX/aggressive in general

● Definitions debate - You can go for it, but don't expect to wow me

● Spreading

● Being late to the round

General:

● The obvious: don't be racist, homophobic, etc.

● I will disclose, but will keep it brief.. There'll be more comments in the e-ballot.

● I try to average a 28 in speaker points. I’d say clear rebuttals are the best way to up your speaks.

If you have questions, please ask me before the round starts.

Experience

Debated 4 years in HS from 2007-2011 (LD [3 years] PF [1 years]) on the circuit.

Preferences

Speaking

I judge several tournaments a year, but am largely removed from the event otherwise. This makes egregious spreading inadvisable. I will say clear once if you are unintelligible, however after that point you are on your own and my retention of your arguments may suffer. Please enunciate card names. I can't stress this enough.

Philosophy / Arguments

Ultimately, i'm going to judge you on the flow. The years have made me slightly more traditional, but i'm still very open to non-traditional cases. Plans, CP's, disads, are all kosher with me. Careful with the more critical material, and if you do run it make sure it is explained well. I tend to have a higher bar of expectations for those who run kritiks, so bear that in mind. I believe theory is necessary to counter abuse, however, if you run it make sure it's well explained and necessary. I'm largely unsympathetic to debaters who employ it offensively.

Technique

Most often, the more technically proficient debater will win my ballot. Make sure your extensions are clear (author names, internal warrants). Give me a standard, link and impact to that standard, and give me weighing analysis for competing offense.

Misc. Preferences

I'm not going to decide the round on whether you sit or stand, or what you're wearing. Do what makes you most comfortable and will produce the best round. Flex prep is more than okay with me. It is expected that you will time yourself. I will keep time for prep, and that's it.

I'm fairly new to judging and prefer traditional LD. I like simple, easy to understand cases. Road-mapping and signposting help me keep track of your arguments.

Debate is an educational communications activity. It's about persuasion; competitors ought to practice the skills that will be effective in the real world. Make every argument clear and why it's important. Explain to me why I should vote for you.

I do hate spreading. Please try to speak at a reasonable pace. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow the round.

I do not like theory.

Please be respectful to each other during cross-ex. I will deduct points for rudeness.

I did LD for 4ish years in high school. Mostly lay experience and much less familiar with flow.

If you are going to run a K you need be very explicit with each link and voters. I don't like generic K's. I really like out of the box K's.

I'm not a fan of spreading. If you spread, I'll only pay attention to the words you say slowly/emphasize, and thats not very fun.

Theory is fine but I don't want it to dominate the round. If you are going to run a shell, be very explicit about each step of the arg.

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.

Email is lifelix@seas.upenn.edu (I find that sending things to my personal email is faster: ligaoxu2012@gmail.com

I did four years of LD debate in high school, on both the local and national circuit, so I'm well-versed in is both progressive and traditional arguments. I am tabula rasa above all, which means that you can convince me of anything. There has been one case when a debater convinced me not to follow my own paradigm. Barring that, here's my take:

While I won't drop a debater for doing so, I would prefer that they only run progressive arguments if their opponent also has experience with them; otherwise there's no real engagement.(Clarification: A progressive arg will still win against a traditional arg if the traditional debater doesn't know how to deal with it, but I may give a ~0.5 speaker point penalty. Exceptions made for plans and especially counterplans, since I consider them barely progressive).

If you spread, I just ask that you flash or send your case to your opponent if they request it. I'm fine with flex-prep, but let me know you want it before your opponent starts their prep.

I find that many debaters don't adequately engage with their opponent's framework - remember to directly attack them on the line-by-line if that's strategically right (and it is, more often than people think it is)

I will disclose at the end of a round if both debaters agree to it.

Weighing is important - for substance, for K's, and for theory. If there is absolutly no weighing, I default Theory>T>K>Policy>Traditional. That assumes that not a single sentence is spoken about what comes first

I debated 2 years for Dulles High School on the local circuit in Houston, TX. I was more of a lay debater, but I don't mind progressive argumentation. I'm currently a senior at the University of Pennsylvania.

I will vote off of any argument so long as it is well-warranted and links back to a framework that I should use to evaluate the round. Your framework/decision calculus (of any kind) should be explained and justified well.

I've been out of the activity for a while, and I don't remember every technical detail of more progressive arguments. This means that I'm not up to speed on the norms of progressive arguments. Acronyms and quick analytics will leave me confused. Explain them well, tell me what I need to do, and above all, make sure you're not being frivolous.

On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm a 6-7. Slow down for signposts and tag lines. If you're going too fast, I'll say "clear" but I've probably already missed something by then. If it's not on my flow, I won't vote off of it. Running through key voters and a breakdown of the round will help me a lot in your closing speech.

I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. If you debate strategically, speak eloquently, CX well, and/or are humorous, you'll probably be looking at higher speaks. Let me know if speaks might help you clear.

Email chain: bliu30@wharton.upenn.edu

Did HS PF and college policy. Coached PF.

Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Preference on traditional style debate where there is a flow to logic and concise contentions.

Not able to keep up with speed reading, please keep speed a reasonable tempo.

I will be focusing on the realism of the debaters arguments made and the coherence of the story being told by the debaters. there should be a quality to the argument where it flows well and have the most real world impact to solving the issue at hand. If the argument seems far fetched and anecdotal, it will not be viewed as valid.

Hey y'all, I'm Adejoke. I did LD debate for four years in High school at two different schools (Bettendorf & North Atlanta) and currently do College Policy at NYU.

email - adejokemason@gmail.com

Short version (I know some of yall are reading this seconds before round. good luck b)

Speed: go as fast as you want but be clear. i'll say clear twice before i stop

Run what you want and what you're best at, that'll probably be the best way to get my ballot. Know your literature base and make sure you can explain it, don't assume I already know what you're talking about or that i'll fill in gaps for you even if I do.

Don't be racist because i'll drop you

Long Version: This is mostly my paradigm for LD but lots of it extends to policy as well

Policy/CPs/DAs etc.: Go for it, make sure the link stories actually make sense, fully explain, but otherwise you're golden

K's: On high theory K's, I'm totally fine with them but I will say I'm not as familiar with some of the literature so definitely be prepared to explain. That being said, I do enjoy them and am willing to listen and vote on them, just don't assume I know more than I do. When it comes to more identity politics based K's, I'm also very much fine with those. I am pretty familiar with some of that literature, but once again that doesn't mean i'll do your work for you. When these are well articulated though, I adore them. Don't pull out your Race K's just because I'm here though, run what you like

Philosophy: Long philosophy frameworks are also something I'm less familiar with depending on the author, but there are quite a few I also know pretty well. So the same goes for all the others, explain this clearly especially if there is a long link chain and be able to answer questions and you should be fine.

Theory/Topicality: I wasn't the biggest fan of Theory in high school, which means that I tend not to side with theory that I view as frivolous. What I mean by that is, I may be easier than most to convince of a no abuse or no impact story in a round. This, however, doesn't mean I dont think there is valid abuse nor does it mean that I won't vote on theory. It's not like I have never won a theory round and thought it legitimate, it just means if your go to strategy is running a theory shell regardless of genuine abuse in round, you may have an uphill battle. Same goes for topicality. But if you defend your shell well and can show me the abuse then I'm more than willing to vote for it. To add to this, since being in college and dealing with T I find both less frivolous and better articulated, I’m even more willing to vote for it when well done & genuine

Performance/Non T affs: I think these are a really great way to introduce creativity and fun into debate and I adore them. I think they also can be very success in impacting the debate space. However, I do need to see a justification as to why the performance and non t nature of the aff is important/has an impact. If no one challenges it then of course there is no need to continue to explain, but if someone presents another way to structure debate I want to see a justification as to why yours beats theirs. I think there are countless legitimate justifications for this so this should be easy to accomplish: i just want to see a good debate about why we should structure debate in either way

a few more notes:

I love when debaters do what they love. Don't read something you don't know much about or hate because you think it'll make me happy or because I did something similar in high school - do what fits you. I'm pretty much willing to vote on anything as long as its well defended. Don't assume i err towards the way you view debate but show me why I should especially if its challenged. Know your literature base and show me that.

Please frame and weigh. Like, please. Give me a clear reason why your world is superior, why your impacts are bigger, why I should view this round the way you want me to etc. so that i can have a coherent rfd instead of a clash-less debate im supposed to decipher. I think the most important thing to me in the last speeches is being given a very clear ballot story

I love when arguments are specifically tailored to whatever they're attacking, so the more specific and less generic you can be, the better. I'm definitely a bigger fan of more quality arguments than a generic dump

I really enjoy creativity particularly in solutions. I like for rounds to be fun and comfortable and not aggressively formal.

Being blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc. won't go well in front of me, so be aware of that.

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I've worked in developmental disability care since graduating.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity. Be topical (on the resolution)- I'm fine with K's and the like as long as you link it somehow to the resolution (I'm liberal with this). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it. Explaining dense concepts to me, ESPECIALLY THEORY AND KRITIKS (please and thanks) is necessary if you want me to understand and flow your case.

If I'm judging you in PF , I vastly prefer on-case, topical arguments that have thorough link chains. The chance I will vote for your K or progressive way of argumentation in PF is drastically lower than if I'm judging Policy, Parli, or LD. Arguments in PF need to be easy-ish to digest or it totally kills the 'Public' aspect of it.

I don't do email chains. Convince me with your words and voice, not the text you send me.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!) That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. Check before round and you'll be Gucci 2 GoGo. I give 2 quite clear warnings for speed/clarity before I decrease speaker points.

Nihilistic/depressing (read; 'pess' arguments) arguments made for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told). I can (and have in the past) overcome this bias but be aware you should be weary running an argument like this without being thorough with your link chain.

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

For LD, I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy if I'm judging you in LD.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique (more details, quirks, ways to implement, etc) the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters quivering rn)

Disclosure theory by itself is boring and I almost will never vote solely for it. I genuinely don't care if you do or don't disclose pre-round unless it's required for the tournament. Linking to T/standards violations/ something else otherwise than just disclosure is necessary for me to flow any kind of Theory like this. If you're using 'theory lingo' when discussing T and expect me to vote for the newest Reddit meme strategy, you're almost def wrong.

If you can't explain your K, theory, or other argument without 'debate lingo' and obscure links to weird one-off heavily progressive arguments you probably shouldn't run it with me.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

Judging Philosphy - Pranav Reddy

I debated at Harker for six years, graduated in 2015, and have judged sporadically since. I debated primarily on the national circuit and am comfortable with most national circuit constructs and arguments (i.e. should be okay with whatever speed or whatever you have in mind). That being said, a couple of notes:

I have a minimum standard for coherence of arguments or evidence - this means I'm willing to intervene in the spirit of ensuring that arguments are coherent, it's not enough to just have something dropped, I'll also uphold a minimum standard of "does this make sense?"

I am not a good judge for bad theory - this is a good example of where the above standard will be applied. I need theory to be clear, blitzing through twenty reasons for RVI's bad won't count if I can't understand it, I won't use the speech doc to forgive unclear or too fast argumentation.

I generally enjoy kritikal arguments and plan-based arguments, you'll find you need to explain philosophical positions in greater detail or slow down for me to get them. I hold a high standard for kritikal arguments, reading through your evidence without explanation is probably insufficient detail for the argument.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round! Good luck!

I am a traditional LD judge.

I am a recent high school graduate who did both speech and debate, so I understand all the rules and regulations fairly well. As someone who straddled both sides, I use speech as a tiebreaker (if all arguments are perfectly balanced - which is albeit unlikely - then the better speaker would be the winner). Keep in mind too that the better you speak, the better I can follow your arguments and the more likely I am to give your arguments credence anyway.

I would think this would be fairly obvious based on what precedes, but I'll be explicit; try not to spread. I don't like Ks or things of the sort, but I will of course allow them and judge them fairly. Emphasize definitions. Be respectful.

As an assistant coach and high school teacher, several things stand out to me in LD and PF Debate Rounds:

- Link your arguments clearly. I cannot assume that your line of reasoning is valid.

- I appreciate clear offtime roadmaps so that I know where to flow your arguments.

- Theory and Kritik is OK, but often overused and not authentic enough. I'm rarely convinced.

- Spreading is ok to an extent if it is done clearly. If you're too fast, you'll need to flash me your case.

- I want to walk away believing you are more right in the round and will make a final decision on that, whether or not you have more offense on the flow or were strategically ahead. It's more important that your arguments are presented believably, authentically, well-linked, and logically.

I have been involved in speech and debate for over 25 years as a competitor, judge, coach, tournament director, and community advocate. I am versed in all event categories on both local and national circuits.

I coach in a traditional league. My preference is that students balance their argumentation with rhetorical skills. That being said- I am capable of handling speed, granted tag lines, citations, and impacts are enunciated clearly. What I do not like is spreading arguments for the sake of “gotcha” scenarios, like “my opponent dropped arguments 42, 63, and 74… so we automatically win the round.” I personally feel that a handful of well-developed, contextualized, and reinforced arguments will outweigh several dozen snapshots.

I keep a detailed flow of the round. To help me in my flow, please use concise tag lines and sign=post your arguments. I pay attention to cross, and believe anything said in cross is fair game for evaluation of the round. I even flow Congress.

As previously stated, I do give preference to students who can balance their rhetorical and argumentation skills. That being said, in all debate categories- argumentation is most-important. I like seeing use of appropriate debate terminology while making arguments and rebuttals. Tell me what your warrants are. Tell me what the impacts of your arguments are. Who are the stakeholders? Why should I prefer your argument over your opponents?

In Lincoln-Douglas, I want to see a values-oriented framework. If not structured traditionally, I still want to see an ethical emphasis. I am open to progressive tactics, and will consider kritical and plan-based constructives. On a special note: Morality, in my opinion, is a weak value due to the subjectivity and relativity of the term. If you choose morality as a value, I will not automatically vote you down- but I will need you clearly and concisely explain how your opponent’s approach is immoral, or does not meet you interpretation of morality.

In Public Forum, I tend to judge on a cost-benefit analysis. Do the pros outweigh the cons? What are the impacts? Who is impacted.

In Policy, I am much more open to progressive arguments, but give preference to stock issues. I can follow theory, kritiks, counterplans, etc.

In Congress, you have to have substance in your arguments. You have to consider what has already been said by other individuals. Does your speech drone on about the same stuff? Does your speech add additional context or value? I pay attention to this.

Historically, I have listened to just about every argument. I do like novel and creative arguments, but I do not automatically vote for them just because they are “outside of the box.” When in doubt, take a risk. What I do not buy are perceived fairness arguments like DISCLOSURE THEORY. True the affirmative has infinite prep, but guess what?! So does the negative. I feel that disclosure theory is a cop-out. It’s whiny. I will hear it, but I will not vote on it.

My expectations for all debaters is civil discourse. Be nice. Be supportive. Be sportsmanlike. If you do not engage in civil discourse, I will deduct speaker points. Bigotry and prejudicial comments will not be tolerated.

"Debated 4 years of Public Forum in high school, current Penn Freshman, keep it clean, speed is alright full spreading is not, don't lose. Good luck. "

Hi. I am happy to be your judge for the round. I am a lay judge and I am only familiar with traditional LD. Tell me why your value criterion is more important than your opponents and give me clear extensions along with weighing your arguments. I don’t disclose after the round.

Things I dislike.

- Spreading

- Being rude and aggressive in cx

- Policy arguments in LD

- Petty arguments like spending an absurd amount of time on the value debate, definitions, etc.

Things I like.

- Being respectful to your opponent and your judges

- Talking in a persuasive manner

- Please signpost if you want good speaks

- Also for high speaks please give me clear voting issues on why you should win the round at the end of your last speech.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts. At the end of the day, I will vote for the debater that can present me with the most persuasive and compelling arguments. Looking forward to a great round. Good luck debaters!

Hi there, I'm a student at Penn and a former LD debater who also did a bit of world schools and extemp.

I came from a pretty traditional high school LD circuit, but I've competed in progressive tournaments as well so I'm totally okay if the latter is more your thing. Just keep in mind that I will be better persuaded by sound logic than a laundry list of evidence. I will listen to Ks/CPs/DAs, as long as they are explained well and not overly generic. Not big on theory/T. Please don't run either except as a last resort.

I don't flow a ton, but enough to get the big ideas and enough to notice if you fail to extend something.

Finally, you can speak quickly as long as you also speak clearly. However, if you plan to spread, I would appreciate it if you emailed me your documents ahead of time. My email is dhlong21@gmail.com. Feel free to also reach out if you have any questions.