Howdy! I have experience as a competitor in LD, PF, and Congress—because of that, I’m stylistically pretty flexible. I place a lot of stock in both your delivery and clash, regardless of the event. Really, no crazy prefs—you know the drill!

For LD debate I care about organization and argumentation: debaters should clearly state their value, criterion, contentions, sub-points etc. I expect debaters to flow their own and their opponent's arguments and to find points of clash. I will consider both the logic and evidence presented. Debaters should avoid rapid delivery or shouting in their speech: if someone is incoherent or taking deep breaths between clauses and sentences while speaking, I may not follow or miss what is said. I am generally not a fan of policy debate intruding into LD debate: I will not be amenable to Kritiks, counterplans, etc. Of course, I expect debaters to be polite to their opponents and to the judge: i.e., I'm not impressed by arrogance or rudeness. This (along with delivery, pacing) will affect speaker points. Debaters should provide voter issues in their concluding rebuttals: they should crystalize why they should win. I will decide based on who coherently provided the best arguments for supporting their value, criterion, and contentions against their opponent's.

I am an experienced debate judge, an engineer by training, a teacher by occupation and a proponent of clear communication. I value speech that is clear and understandable at a pace that a normal human can follow and using words that any layman could understand. If you see my put my pen down, that means that you are speaking too fast and I am no longer flowing your arguments.

About me: I competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate for 3 years for Northwest Guilford High School. I’ve qualified to NCFL Grand Nationals and reached Semifinals at Durham Academy My senior year. Currently a senior at Duke University. My pronouns are he/him/his

Conflicts: Northwest Guilford High School

Speed: I can handle a pretty brisk conversational pace, but keep in mind that the pace you choose to speak at directly trades off with me (and your competitor’s) ability to truly understand and write down what you are saying. I have zero experience with fast, nat-circuity type debate, so spreading is probably not the move. Slowing down at tags/authors/any important point you want to emphasize will go a long way towards making you more understandable and persuasive, and your speaks will show. If you speak fast in front of an inexperienced debater, expect speaks to suffer. If you are competing in an activity that focuses on engaging with competing ideas, why would you want to shy away from clash? Hiding arguments is not fun and makes debate a waste of time.

Framework: Framework matters as much as you’d like it to. Being marginally ahead on the V/VC Debate only matters if you explain the implications of your framework, and why it should inform my ballot. Your impacts should relate back to your framework, if they don’t Then I’m gonna be confused. Franework debates were my favorite as a competitor, yet it feels like almost nobody cares about framework these days. With that thought in mind, A well though out, creative framework that effectively advances your position will go a long way towards earning my ballot. Stock philosophies are great and have a lot of educational value, but I’d challenge you to think of something original and put your own creative spin on these philosophical issues. Debate is an educational activity after all; show me that you’ve really contemplated the topic and not just read about how 400 year old Englishmen thought about the topic.

Theory/T: I understand how theory/T works. That being said, I rarely ever engaged in this type of debate in high school. If you feel your competitor is being abusive, feel free to read it; I’ll do my best to evaluate it. However, keep in mind I’m definitely not the most experienced judge in these types of matters. If there’s clear abuse, I’m down to listen. Frivolous theory will just make everybody sad.

Plans/CPs: Unless your plan is whole-rez, you’re probably going to be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince me. CPs probably need to be VERY mutually exclusive, and it’s the Neg’s job to establish this from the 1NC. This is a very fundamental issue on a CP debate, so if you fail to explain how your CP is competitive and the Aff calls you out for it in the 1AR, I consider your extra spicy cards explaining how it’s conpetitive in the 2NR to be new. It’s not fair for the Aff’s first chance at responding to these issues to be the 2AR.

Kritiks: Not necessarily opposed per say, I just happen to have zero experience with this type of argumentation. Proceed at your own risk and be sure to be extremely detailed in your explanations because I probably haven’t read the literature

Tricks: No. just No

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round! I’m excited to hear what you have to say :)

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts. For email chains: anguse@live.unc.edu. I did LD for four years with North Meck HS and NCSSM. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and Math at UNC.

General

- Speed is fine up to the point where you have to resort to breathing techniques. This does not mean go the same speed you would and cause yourself to pass out.

- Especially in circuit debate – post rounding is a-ok by me. I know I don’t have as much experience with circuit LD, and so the more feedback I get and engagement on my judging, the better I think I am going to be in the future for it.

- I know this makes me sound super lay, but like, PLZ do not read me whatever boring stock util. case you have prepped for lay judges, I hear about enough of this on the local circuit – I want to see something exciting.

-Your job is to write my ballot for me.

Authors I am very comfortable with: DnG, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Foucault, Kant, Adorno.

Intervention

I take as minimal an approach to judge intervention as possible. However, there are certain standards for what I just will not accept:

-New in the 2; I won’t drop you but I don’t flow new arguments in the 2. Not flowing it means it didn’t happen.

-Blatantly false claims: racism good, climate change not real, etc.

Plans and CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of these sorts of debates but I’ll certainly put up with it. Just make sure you execute well.

Policy vs Policy: Compare evidence quality (authors, methodology, sample size, etc.). I could not possible care less about the number of cards you have compared to your opponent.

Topicality: CPs must be competitive. There are a few ways I have seen this violated:

- CP: do the AFF except some absurdly minimal aspect;

- CP not mutually exclusive with the AC

- Resolution doesn’t spec. an actor, but the CP only changes the actor. This is especially relevant to ACs which don’t provide a plan. This is just a more specific case of the first example and – I think – a more egregious violation.

Additionally, please give cards for T; I won’t drop you if you don’t, but your speaks will probably suffer. The more absurdly technical the T debate, the better. Conditional CPs are immensely cringe. I’m also fine with Nebel T, watching people cry about how they might not be able to read an absurdly specific plan is hilarious.

K Debate

I’m most comfortable with Cap Ks, but if you read me cards from Tankies, Maoists, or the like… RIP your speaks. An important note in K debate is please do not try to obfuscate your way to victory.

- Signpost and go line-by-line.

- The more explicit the link the better.

- What does the K do or accomplish concretely? (K-Affs especially)

- Unless it makes sense in lieu of your FW, I’ll prolyl dock your speaks for reading me HuffPo, etc.

- Give a framework for the K!

- If you struggle with providing examples when asked in CX, it probably tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll give you 30 speaks if you read some Neg-Dialectics K about how you should always negate because affirming always traps concepts in a fashion which runs opposite to the dialectical Idea of truth. It would be really funny and would make my day.

FW Debate

I’m probably most comfortable with this. I did a lot of Kant FWs in my time, so I’ll be very comfortable with those. Consequently, I am fine with the idea of not having impact calculus – but only in rounds where you have demonstrated that consequences need not be considered; the default in debate seems to be some sort of util.

I am not a fan of testing the plausibility of a theory based on how a majority of people feel about it (something about Ideology and so on and so forth *sniff*).

Meta-ethics are dope and cool.

I will not penalize you on neg. for just going insane on reading turns and conceding FW, unless you do something insanely stupid like concede a Kant FW and then read impact turns (which I have seen people do). Like???

LOCAL TOURNAMENTS: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WARRANT YOUR FW IN A SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. If you don’t, do not expect to get above a 28.

Theory Debates

Go ahead, but I don’t have a lot of experience here so don’t be surprised if it goes bad for you (I mean it will still be my fault, but just know it’s likely to happen). If you do read theory: PLEASE stay away from jargon! I am putting in the work to better understand the evaluation of theory debates, but I’m not quite there.

Spikes: fine. A prirois: cringe. NIBs: cringe. Burdens: fine. Triggers: cringe. I’m not chill with RVIs just yet until I feel I have a better handle on them. Sorry .

I am a parent judge, and this is my 3rd year judging debate.

When I judge a round, I look for the following:

1. If you don't connect your evidence to your overall argument, I will not be convinced.

2. Do not spread--I value quality and connectivity over quantity.

3. I value strong cross examination skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case will help you win the round.

4. Be confident but courteous in the round.

I grew up debating 2-person Cross Ex (Policy) in High School and went on to debate in college on scholarship (NDT & CEDA). In college, I worked as a camp counselor at numerous summer high school debate (policy) camps.

I'm pretty open as to how you approach the round. If you want to debate slow w/ well developed structured arguments that's fine. If you want to spread and offer dual conditional counter plans, etc., I'm open to that as well. I believe there is a strategic/'gaming' side of debate that runs in parallel with the discussion about the resolution.

Your job is to write my ballot for me in the final rebuttal. I expect you to define the paradigm I should use and why you meet that paradigm better than the other side.

Past Experience

Debated at Hamilton High School (AZ) in Policy for 4 years.

Philosophy

I am fine with any arguments, but just make sure to articulate the warrants and engage in the debate on an at least somewhat resolutional level. That being said, I am a fan of Ks, but not so much theory/topicality. I will still buy all arguments, though, so run what you are comfortable with. I am not as concerned with the performance of the debate as opposed to the quality of the argumentation (unless of course the performance is a key part of the case)

General

Not gonna count random stuff as prep, but don’t take advantage of that and still make sure you’re not doing work if you’re not taking prep.

Roadmaps/signposting is a MUST, it will be very difficult to flow every argument otherwise, which may come back to hurt you in the end.

I will say clear and/or slow if you are incoherent - speaks get docked after the second time.

Speaker Point Distributions (I am more influenced by quality of argumentation than speaking performance):

30 — Nearly perfect, everything that needed to be covered was covered and articulated well

29.5 — Extremely well-articulated and thorough debate

29-29.5 — Strong, skilled arguments

28.5-29 — Solid

27.5-28.5 — Average, argumentation could have been better

Below 27.5 — Lots of work needs to be done, key arguments were not addressed or argued properly

Extra 0.5 speaker points for making me laugh or any UNC bashing

I was captain of my high school debate team and am still enough of a debate geek that I come judge tournaments even though my kids aren't on the team.

At a high level, I will judge you based solely on the content of your arguments, even if they are crazy. Argue what you want. If it's stupid and out in left field, yes, I may think it's stupid and out in left field. But if your opponent can't refute the argument, I'll flow it for you.

I'm fine with speed. I used to rapid fire when I was in policy debate, and it can be an effective strategy. I won't hold it against you. But if you have the stronger position, going slower and focusing on key points may work better (maybe for me, and most likely for non-experienced parent judges). Point is, I'm okay with speed, but it might not be your best option. It depends.

While I will determine the winner based solely on the content of the arguments made, I do recognize that there is value in encouraging presentation, so I will base speaker points on both quality of arguments and how you present yourself (e.g., eye contact is a Good Thing). I will, and have, given wins to lower rated speakers.

I'm on the fence regarding dropped arguments. Used to, if an opponent failed to respond to an argument in any round, I would flow it to the other team. Now I'm a little more inclined to not count all drops as concessions. A response would, however, be required before rebuttals -- that's not when you're supposed to be making new arguments...though if you want to go meta and try to convince me that new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, feel free. Like I said above, I'm willing to consider anything -- it's up to your opponent to refute what you say.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I'm flow oriented and prefer that debaters explicitly state and weigh impacts. I like to include authors' names when I flow; please read them clearly.

I am a Latin teacher who is helping coach the new Speech and Debate team at my school. Although I am new to the forensics world, I have invested time in learning about LD debate and have judged multiple tournaments this year. I have experience judging at both the Novice and Varsity level. I will flow your debates and am able to follow complex arguments. I think that spreading is bad form. I am able to follow students who speak quickly but remain articulate. Otherwise, I will not be judging based on style but on argumentation.

I am a parent judge who has been judging on the local North Carolina circuit for a year and a half. I cannot tolerate spreading at all--if you want to know if your speed is understandable to me, please ask before the round. I have absolutely no understanding of formal theory shells, but if you make a clear, jargon-less, explanation about why a certain argument is abusive, I will take it into account; however, it will NOT factor greatly into my decision. Do not use technical terms or esoteric philosophies because I will not understand them and will likely be distracted from your actual case.

The key points that I expect from a good debater are: 1) clear logic and well-explained analysis 2) smooth, organized speaking 3) courteous behavior -- debate should be fun and educational

Happy Debating!

I am a parent judge and have judged LD novice and varsity since 2019. I appreciate well formed arguments, encourage you to weigh and take care not to drop arguments put forth by your opponent. I do not like spreading or fatalist arguments. I appreciate common sense and arguments that have a logical progression. Students who take an aggressive tone with their opponent are not gaining any speaker points with me. Be respectful and convincing!

Hey everyone! I did Arizona PF for four years, Congress for two, and sprinkles of other events (so yes, I know what a kritik is). I've also judged "full-time" in North Carolina for four years now, mostly PF and LD. I expect a respectful debate from both sides.

For PF, I'm pretty standard. Make sure to spend as much time as possible in your rebuttal speech attacking the opponent's case with specific attacks relating to points they brought up in constructive.

For LD, I'm ok with progressive stuff, but since all my experience is with PF and traditional LD, know that you're taking a risk there. If you do end up going progressive, please be clear as to why I must vote for you! Spreading is fine, but if you're going to talk super fast, please flash drive over your speech so I can follow along.

I vote off the flow, but make sure to weigh impacts in your final speeches - a little bit of narrative (just a little bit!) can go a long way into helping me understanding your side/arguments and voting for you. By narrative, I mean high level analysis of the round, talking about the big picture and not getting too bogged down in the contention level debate (this especially applies to the last few speeches for each side).

My general rule is "quality over quantity." You've probably heard that a billion times, but I truly have trouble understanding quick, one sentence responses to arguments, especially in rebuttal. Take time to develop each response, giving me the context and all of the logic behind it, instead of saying a couple words and expecting me to do the analysis on my own. Also, the more counter-intuitive/non-obvious/unique the point you're trying to make is, the more you have to "gift-wrap" it - I'm willing to listen to almost everything but I need a little more help on arguments that aren't stock/easily understandable. Again, I want to hear the entire logical picture from the debaters, instead of having to fill in gaps on my own. I specifically like listening to how different responses and contentions interact with each other (i.e. grouping after rebuttal speeches). That being said, if an argument is mostly there and is missing just a frivolous part I tend to be pretty sympathetic, but you don't want to rely on this.

For PF - I don't require 2nd speaking rebuttal to defend against responses in 1st speaking rebuttal, but I highly encourage it. I don't require 1st speaking summary to repeat attacks on the opponents case, unless 2nd speaking rebuttal defended their own case against the attacks.

anita.DukeDiv at gmail

My name is Anita Salazar. I competed in and have judged just about every speech and debate event. For Debate, although I only competed in PF and Congress, I have been judging LD and CX since 2009. I have seen an array of traditional and progressive arguments and I value validity and logic. I tend to be critical of dropped arguments, but I don't believe more substantiative points should be shadowed by a delineation. Regarding speed: I am fine with any speed if there are signposts and good taglines, but being virtual makes this a bit trickier. Being included in the chain helps this exponentially; but because of internet stability issues, I think it is wise to always confer with your opponent and judge(s) in the round first before spreading.

I did Public Forum for 4 years in high school. This is my first year judging.

Debate (general)

I will judge the round based on the flow and try my best to be tabula rasa - if you make an argument and it isn't responded to, I will buy it.

Logic > cards. I prefer arguments that have logical warrants over arguments that rely on unwarranted pieces of evidence.

Speed. Clarity > Speed. With 1 = conversation speed and 10 = fast spreading, I am about a 7. If you spread, please be clear, and I will try to follow as best as possible, but do not expect to me to pick up everything you say. You will see me put down my pen if I cannot understand you at all.

Make progressive arguments at your own discretion. I am relatively unexperienced with progressive debate. If you make progressive arguments, I will try my best to understand, but do not expect me to be perfect in evaluating them.

Evidence. I am fine with paraphrasing or direct quotes. If I find out that you misconstrued a piece of evidence, I will drop it from the round. I will only call for evidence if I am asked to do so in a speech.

PLEASE WEIGH! If neither side weighs, I will default to the argument that is warranted the best. This is pretty subjective, so I really don't like doing this, but I will if it's my only choice. I will also decide between arguments this way if there are two separate weighing mechanisms that don't interact with each other.

Framework. If one side brings up a framework and it isn't responded to, I will use it to evaluate the round. More specific to LD/Policy, I am unexperienced with any kind of philosophical debate, so if it comes to this, please explain everything to me thoroughly.

PF Specific

Second Rebuttal - Answering responses from first rebuttal is optional, but I would recommend it.

First Summary - You must extend defense (your responses to opponent's case). I will drop any rebuttal responses that aren't extended in this speech.

(this paradigm was written with the assistance of my son)

Hi! I am a parent judge who has been judging here and there for the last 1 year. I am a typical lay judge and thus, adjust your arguments and style as such.

Speed: Don't spread, don't talk fast. I know all you "flow" kids are groaning rn, but chill out fam.

Rhetoric: Rhetoric matters to some extent, but as long as you can get the arguments across to me, from your brain to my flow, you're fine.

Extending: Any arguments you want me to vote on must have cleanly been extended throughout the entire round. Don't tell me to vote off of any args that you didn't make/extend previously.

If both debaters are equal in my "lay" eyes, I will probably vote off of speaking style and persuasiveness.

I am a Lay Judge, and look for consistency in your arguments. Please make sure you do not spread (speed read), or else i will not be able to understand your arguments and evaluate. Please make voter issues clear, so that I can make my decision easier. i would also prefer if your arguments were not too out-landish.

I am a traditional judge who has been part of the debate community for over a decade now. I look towards both the contention level arguments as well as the value framework. I am willing to consider progressive styles but I don't prefer it. As long as the speaker is clear I can handle speed, but I believe it is a test of skill to communicate more content with fewer words.

I am new to LD, but look forward to judging. I am a parent of four, and an avid reader with an interest in a variety of perspectives. I am also a fan of politics, (old school) and have experience in the journalism profession, (also old school). As an LD judge, I will value strength and consistency of a well researched argument. I’m sure I will be impressed by those who best demonstrate clarity of position, and perception in discerning and refuting opponents’ assertions.

Heather Weisz

I have judged LD at the high school level for 2 years. I would guess that 30% of the teams I have judged were Novice and 70% have been Varsity. Many years ago, I did debate LD has a high schooler in Ann Arbor MI and have fond memories of the events and my coach.

I am a mathematician/statistician by training, although my career has morphed into sales and marketing in the last decade. My mathematical background does steer my judging more towards the logic and organization of arguments rather than merit. With that said, if I cannot hear a debater or if they mumble and I cannot understand them it can impact my ability to follow their arguments and logic.

I tent to start each debater with 30 points and take points away for items like not addressing opponent arguments, etc. I do not give points for strength of an arguments. So, if a debater makes an argument and their opponent does not address that point, even if it is not a strong point, I tend to subtract points.

I love hearing smart young people make well researched, informed, arguments in LD. It makes me hopeful for the future.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for 2 years. I judge based on what I can understand, so I prefer a slower debate... a clear and understandable speech is essential to win. I like the structural debate with framework, and strong evidence to address arguments. I like strategic cross examination and voting issues. Your behavior and language have to be appropriate...being confident and courteous is important.