Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Your links are bad, your impacts won't happen, and you're wasting my time. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't aspec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

I will dock half a speaker point if you use Moen 16 or Goodin 95 in your framework. They are wildly overused, and most cuts don't say what people claim they do.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Anthony Berryhill Judge Paradigm

(NOTE: SIGNIFICANTLY UPDATED AS OF DECEMBER 8, 2022 FOR NEWMAN TOURNEY)

Current Experience:

• Professional: Former Vice President of Learning at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm (until June 2022)
• Currently running own college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com, Subject matter expert on practical applications of L&D, D&I, and intersectionality
• Coaching (recent): 2022 Collegiate Public Forum National Champions (Yale AT), 2021 NCFL Grand Nationals Champion (Myers Park EA), 2021 LD State Champions in North Carolina (varsity) and Louisiana (novice), and seven top 20 finishes (speaking and/or final result) at NSDA Nationals LD/Extemp Speaking, Member of NSDA LD Wording Committee (since 2018)
• Previously: Assistant LD Coach for Isidore Newman (my alma mater); Managing Director for Victory Briefs (2018-2020); started national circuit squads at Harker and Mission San Jose, 2007 TOC International Public Forum Champions (with Rick Brundage and Nick Coburn-Palo)
• Education: Stanford BA Political Science 2004; Previous PhD Candidate (MA/MPhil) at Yale in Contemporary Political Theory, Dissertation on intersectionality (2004-2011); MBA Quantic School of Business and Technology

How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.

I view LD as a traditional judge, with a critical theory orientation. I strongly and violently prefer line-by-line and crystallization style debating, with a clear, accessible delivery style (think 1996-2015 LD).

I dislike the faux policy style ever present in circuit LD, the go faster than you are clear - dump arguments/rehash Goodin 10 util/ 4 off NC style. *I'm not anti-policy,* I'm anti the use of policy concepts incorrectly, without the speaking, analytical clarity, and ethics evidence practices that policy debaters do, but circuit LDers emulating them do not.

In sum: I need to fully *understand,* and be able to explain, in detail, why you won the round. Help me do that as much as you can, and if you do, then I won't care about your style.

Signposting (specific named reference to specific contentions/subpoints/cards/analytics) and extending arguments will help you win rounds and are absolutely necessary. Identify and outline specific arguments you are answering. Help me flow well by slowing down SIGNIFICANTLY on tags, having tags that EXPLAIN/SIMPLIFY AND CONTEXTUALIZE your argument, without powertagging (which I hate).

It is also in your best interest to explicitly weigh between scenarios in which you lose/win slowly, carefully, and in a structured manner, esp. at the NR and 2AR. It is better to admit/account for what you may lose than to ignore it. Debaters who do this round analysis win my ballot and 30s with shocking consistency, unless there is a technical error. Those who do not adapt...have been much less fortunate.

DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS:

You must vary your voice, speed and avoid monotone at all costs.

WARNING: National circuit debate like speed/spreading is unflowable and unfollowable, even with a speech doc. I can't understand or flow it (neither can 90% of judges, but they don't admit it).

ON SPEED: My max is fast conversational speed. If you spread and you aren't college policy champion level clear/decipherable, I will not be able to flow you (and won't yell clear).

What I won't vote for:

1. Blippy arguments, or SENTENCE FRAGMENTS esp. on theory and in-case preempts. If it's bad English, not warranted, etc. I reserve the right NOT vote for the claim and/or I'll look for reasons not to.

2. "Tricks" debaters are bad people and don't get my ballot. Don't hide arguments or lie.

3. POWERTAGGED evidence/tags that are lying or exaggerating the claim made by the author. If your tag says more than your card does and I catch it, I reserve the right to intervene and not vote for the argument.

IMPORTANT: If you are the debater seeing a powertagged or miscut card PLEASE TELL ME, and I'll check the card and judge accordingly. I'm a real stickler that evidence needs to warrant precisely what's being claimed/impacted, no fudging/exaggerating. Just having a one sentence assertation that repeats your tag is NOT ENOUGH. #evidenceethics

4. No skepticism, no disclosure theory cheap shots, no impossible burdens, no arguments that are contingent on the identity of your opponent, no misgendering theory, and don't ask me to save society or debate with the ballot. Just debate the topic--or if you don't, defend your alternative approach well.

5. I will stop rounds, interrupt speeches, and/or consider a Loss/0 if a debater is being inappropriate in content, performance, or language. I won't do this unless I think there is a safety issue, or behavior which would violate a high school's conduct guidelines.

DO NOT SWEAR or engage in other inappropriate behaviors that are common in circuit LD performances, this includes your speech docs.... *cough* even if running afropess, that's no excuse for bad behavior that your principal would disapprove of, regardless of your racial identity.

TLDR: If you wouldn't do it in front of your mom, principal, or the scholars you are citing, don't do it in front of me. Just debate clean and we'll all leave happy!

I am as close to "tabula rasa" as possible... I will not interject my knowledge or opinions into the round, but that means it has to actually be stated in the round. I appreciate a line-by-line debate, but a dropped argument isn't necessarily a slam-dunk win without a compelling summary or weighing of the round. Give me voters, give me a reason to vote for you in your final speeches.

I was a policy debater 20+ years ago, and I currently coach at Warner Robins High School. In the past few years, I have judged all levels of LD and PF. I judge debate or IEs depending on our team's judging needs per tournament. I can follow speed if you are clear, and I appreciate an enunciated or emphasized tag or argument. I'm too pragmatic to enjoy philosophy - I can follow it, and I will vote on it, but you need to make sure to explain why I should vote on it.

I'll keep the official time for the round, but I love to hear competitors say they'll keep their own time.

One last thing, be nice to one another... I won't necessarily vote on your behavior or sportsmanship with your opponent, but poor attitudes and lack of respect for others can have a negative impact on your speaker points.

Good luck!

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

Pauline Buis's JP: Coach, primarily judges PF and LD, does judge Congress and all Speech events as well

It is my responsibility to be FAIR--I have a irrefutable responsibility to evaluate the case based upon the debate itself, the evidence presented and the delivery.

• Tabla rosa--I will be--I assure you that I will be that and that I have NO preconceived idea of who should win; there is no truth, no knowledge, apart to what is revealed in the debate round, but I will not be an idiot devoid of knowledge to make an educated evaluation. Don't go so deep into hypotheticals and theory that you go out on a limb and fall off. Arguments are expected to be relevant to the resolution.

• Familiarity with topic being judged-- I will be

• Speaking rate of delivery-spreading is abhorred, in order to be effective, you must be understood; debate is the art of rhetoric not an auction or pharmaceutical drug or other such disclaimer speech. I have observed that debaters who try to use speed sacrifice a great deal of understand-ability and persuasiveness. Typically, the amount of evidence added to the case is not worth that sacrifice. As a result, I dislike excessive speed, as I have difficulty flowing the argument, and it seems as though speed becomes more important than persuasion. I would rather see fewer contentions than hear a debater SPREAD to impart a multitudinous number of contentions and then assert a dropped contention on a competitor.

• Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. A debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including: effective reading, clear and understandable articulation and vocal variety, persuasive vocal argumentation, presence, and eye contact. The 1AC & 1NC in particular with regard to speaking and preparation should be well prepared and delivered.

• Lincoln Douglas debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be”. Thus, the debater that upholds his or her value best will likely win the round. Just creating and extending a claim is not enough to win.

• Public Forum debate is either policy, value or fact based. Know and approach the resolution accordingly. Otherwise my paradigm stands and applies.

• Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. It is not sufficient to claim a card for a topic without a link and analysis of topic; in other words, warrants are better when supported with a card. Don't just present a warrant or card and say, "According to ...evidence or card...." Expand upon the warrants, find out what your evidence says; commit to never making a reference to a card without implicit or explicit explanation and analysis. Impacts are why one should care about your argument; they should connect to the broader picture. Do let me know WHY the contention and card are important and how it may interact with other considerations that might also be relevant. And we all know that correlation is not always causation.

• Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity and quality of evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. The contentions should also link back to the value or resolution. See ANALYSIS above.

• Number of issues covered in a debate--Well covered contentions with sub-points over a plethora of contentions not covered in any depth; more is not necessarily better.

• Refutation/ Clash – essential in debate-The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with effective use of evidence and examples.

• Ad hominim--no cheap shots--there are bounds of appropriateness and decorum in debate

• Offense/defense vs reasonability and counterclaims--depends on the issue and resolution

• Paper or Tech--whatever works best for you and what tournament ascribes. If you do use a laptop, please do not hide your face. Regardless whether paper or tech is utilized, do look up and breathe--relax and enjoy the debate.

• The win is determined in your AR, NR and Cross-ex; after all, everyone comes in prepped for the case, but the real debate is won in the rebuttals and cross examination when the debater's preparations and abilities in the art of rhetoric dictate the outcome.

• Speaker points--eye contact, use of hand gestures, body language and posture, rate, volume, tone, vocal inflections, passion and certainly decorum do matter, but it is your case, evidence and and application and analysis thereof that wins the ballot.

CONGRESS:

Again I come in tabla rosa, of course, but do know that I am informed as a coach of legislation presented for the sessions.

PO Judging criteria:

knowledge of parliamentary procedure

clear in explaining procedures and rulings

fair and consistent in order of recognition (recency) and rulings

control the chamber and delegates

efficient and effective in moving chamber business along--avoiding unnecessary verbiage

fosters a respectful, professional and collegial atmosphere

Senators/Representatives:

Originality--advances speech whether refutes or endorses arguments

Organization/Unity--cohesive, pointed contentions realizing often extemporaneous

Evidence and Logic--relevant & reliable, ability to observe, vested, expert, neutral sourced

Delivery--extemp vs read preferred; engage, respect audience, tone serious of purpose and deliberate, passionate and committed, poised

Questions/Open to questions--grasp of issues and ability to defend/endorse position

SPEECH EVENTS: DI, DUO, Info, HI,

All the usuals are judged with an open mind and heart: characterization, vocalization, tech/blocking, environment, cut, intro--don't hesitate to present one that is out-of the box, transitions, timing, the theme and message itself, message...body language, articulation, inflection....

Additional Exclusive FYIs

OO roadmap is optional--respect alternative methods of organization--reliable citations, message, transitions

POI--big fan of this forum

Extemp:

AGD intriguing to start, roadmap essential here for both you and the judge for organization and flow fo speech, relevant and current information that is well cited, comes full circle to a viable conclusion that answers the question.

Respectfully submitted,

Pauline Buis, M. Ed.

English IV, AP Capstone, AICE Classical Studies, Critical Thinking 2, and, of course, our favorite Forensics: Speech and Debate

Speech and Debate in HS and college: LD and Congress, speech events: OO, Inf, Prose and Poetry, Oral Interp, Impromptu and Improv

Coach

I competed in LD for four years at Benjamin Franklin high school on the Louisiana local circuit.

As a debater I ran almost exclusively traditional constructives but had a lot of exposure to most types of progressive structures(K’s, theory, T, plans/counter-plans). As a judge I aim to vote mechanically from the flow. In order for me to flow an argument you have to present a warrant. I am willing to vote on pretty much anything. I will default to flowing cx unless you convince me that I shouldn’t. Absent any offense for either side I will presume neg unless neg reads advocacy other than the squo. You don’t need to extend the full claim warrant impact of every argument but I do expect the elements of an argument which you view as essential to voting to be covered in rebuttal. If you're going to spread please flash me everything you are going to read.

I focus on rhetoric and overall persuasive appeal. I do not think spreading is the best plan of attack.

General paradigms: I will usually listen to any and all arguments. However, it is your job to present your arguments in a cohesive and persuasive way if you want me to vote on it.

Spreading: I do not appreciate it. Prioritize clarity over speed.

I haven't judged much LD and I cannot judge spreading. I need to understand the argument to vote on it, and I want to clearly see your defense. Also, I do not like theory - at all.

I am an experienced English teacher. I focus on rhetoric and overall persuasive appeal. I do not think spreading is the best plan of attack. I appreciate when debaters adapt to their competitor and the judge with focus on pace, information, and explanation.

I need to feel passion in your argument. Prioritize defense.

Truth over tech.

CX is binding.

PF is about public appeal; present yourself accordingly.

Background/ Experience:

• I have taught communication and/or coached competitive debate and forensics for over a decade.
• I have been judge on the state and national circuits.

Likes:

• I like clash, clear argumentation, and make sure to warrant and impact your claims.
• Respect each other.

Dislikes:

• I do not tolerate bigotry or racism in a debate.
• Spreading outside of policy or progressive LD
• One sided debate in congressional

Voting:

• I take a tabula rasa approach when voting. When it comes to the material of the case, I look at who can best present the argument and why their case outweighs their opponents.
• In addition, I use a combination of evidence, argumentation, clash, speaking skills, etc... to determine the winner.
• I do not disclose the win/loss at the end of a round unless directed by Tab.

Congressional:

• Delivery should be extemporaneous in nature. A smooth cadence with interaction with the chamber is great. The speed should not be speeding through the speech time.
• Be sure to maximize your allotted time.
• Evidence should be used to substantiation.
• Decorum should simulate that of a congressional chamber, that being said it is good to remember to have fun as well.
• I use a combination of delivery, evidence, analysis, decorum, and speaks to determine both speech value and rankings.

I am an English teacher and former IE competitor.

While judging, I focus on rhetoric and your ability to effectively persuade.

I appreciate being able to understand your arguments, so spreading and speeding are discouraged.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Carnegie Vanguard KF, Challenge Early JA, Challenge Early KU, Eastwood Academy JS, Langham Creek ML

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. I would strongly prefer email over NSDA Classroom fileshare, and please title the chain as so: "Tournament Year + Name - Round # - _____ vs. _____ (Judge)"

If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated LD for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association. My views on debate are heavily influenced by Kris Wright via the Texas Debate Collective Teachers Institute. Most of the sections below are relevant for both policy and LD; see the very bottom for policy/PF-specific thoughts, although policy teams might also want to review the sections for LARP/T/K.

Pref Shortcuts

• LARP/Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2*
• Kritik (identity): 2-3*
• Kritik (pomo): 3-4*
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

*Ratings vary as function of what you're reading and whether I'm familiar with it. It's not that I will refuse to evaluate an author or position that I haven't seen before - rather, it'll just be more challenging for me to adjudicate. Feel free to ask me before round about a specific author.

General

• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining why you win which layers and why those layers come first.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• I default to a competing worlds paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• Prep time ends when you've finished compiling the document. I won't count emailing but please don't steal prep.
• Signpost please. I prefer debaters to be explicit about where to flow things and I appreciate pen time. If you're giving a speech and I'm looking around the different sheets of paper instead of writing, I'm likely trying to find the argument and will probably miss something.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.
• I presume aff in LD: neg side bias exists so in the absence of offense from either side the aff did the better debating. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• Debaters should time every speech and should always count down on their timer for their own speeches. That way, it'll go off when your time runs out, which will keep you honest and ensure that you don't accidentally go over. I might not cut you off if your time runs out, but I'll stop flowing and deduct 0.1 speaks for every 3 seconds you go over if your timer doesn't ring.

LARP/Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these debates, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should have be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• Perms are tests of competition, not shifts of advocacy.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.
• A 1NC strategy that doesn't include a substantial investment on case is generally sub-par.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations. I'll evaluate shells via reasonability if you ask me to but I'd prefer an explicit brightline for determining what constitutes a reasonable vs. unreasonable practice rather than drawing upon my intuitions for debate. If you just ask me to intuitively evaluate the shell without an explanation of what that constitutes, my aversion to intervention will likely lead me to gut check to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs (and that you need to win a counterinterp to win with an RVI).
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't magically operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments or I will likely miss something.
• Disclosure is good. However, I do coach both sides of this debate. Read it if you'd like, just don't be mean about it and be prepared to defend your performance if your opponent is clever.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Framework (as distinct from T-FW)

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your topic literature; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under. Especially if your framework is complex or obscure, a brief summary of how it functions (i.e. how it sifts between legitimate and illegitimate offense) would be helpful.

Kritiks

• I have a decent conceptual understanding of k debate, especially after teaching it to students every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature so explain well. It is in your best interests to keep your speeches well-structured so they are easy to follow.
• I especially appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative. Good K debates typically include quotes from lines in your opponent's evidence/advocacy with an explanation of why those are additional links.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so I do not have strong ideological leanings here.
• Too many Role of the Ballots are impact-justified; if you're reading one you should warrant it more substantively.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 8.5 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll almost certainly miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS random analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.
• My flowing limitations are a contributing factor to why I'm probably not a great judge for you if tricks are your A-strat. If you're reading tricks one of three things is likely to happen: I'll miss it, I won't understand it, or I'll think it's stupid. Additionally, I won't hold your opponent to a higher standard than I hold myself to, so if I didn't understand the implication of an argument (especially a blippy/shady one) in a prior speech, I'll give them leeway on answering it in a later one.
• I'll yell "clear" or "slow" once but that means I already missed something. Honestly though, it's not uncommon for me to be so preoccupied with trying to keep up that I forget to call clear or slow.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, unless the round is bad and it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I won't disclose speaks so don't bother asking.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get high speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced then.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way. As a former competitor from a school with very limited competitive infrastructure, most of what I know about debate I had to learn myself absent formal instruction. This makes me very sympathetic to debaters from small schools or under-resourced programs who might not be familiar with the technical jargon of the activity but who, nevertheless, make good arguments. It behooves you, if you've had access to more privileged instruction, to debate in a way that keeps the round accessible for everyone.

If Judging Policy

• Please keep in mind that although I coach policy now, the entirety of my competitive experience and the bulk of my training, judging and thinking about debate has been funneled through the lens of LD. If you're a policy debater, it's probably still useful for you to review the specific argumentative sections above (ex. LARP, Theory, K), depending on what you're planning to read.
• I presume neg in policy because in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff.
• I frequently see teams read half a T-shell in the 1NC (unwarranted standards/voters/implication/paradigm issues, or missing those pieces altogether) and then blow it up in the block. I think that if you read a disad in the 1NC it should probably contain the core parts (uniqueness/link/impact), even if you read additional evidence in the block, and I hold T to the same standard. Otherwise, I'm receptive to efficient 2AC responses along the lines of "that's not a complete argument; lack of warranted standards means there's no offense to the interp and you should reject the shell" and will allow new responses in the 1AR in response to developments in the block.
• If your counterplan is 8 seconds long with no cards, the 2AC probably needs no more than 0:15 answering it and I'll be super lenient with 1AR responses if you blow it up in the block.
• Smart, analytical arguments (particularly as no-links on a kritik or an improbable impact chain) are heavily underutilized in policy. My ideal 1NCs/2ACs incorporate analytics as a component of a layered response strategy. I see too many policy debaters who are just card bots, including reading cards that don't actually contain warrants and reading additional cards in a later speech instead of going for preexisting evidence.

If Judging PF

• I rarely judge PF and I avoid it when I can. I won't know what your topic is and I probably had to google the speech times beforehand.
• If you're paraphrasing cards I will evaluate them as glorified analytics. Alternatively, if you're one of the rare teams that actually reads cards and doesn't paraphrase, say so and I will reward you with speaks. Just don't commit to reading cards and then paraphrase; that's clipping.
• I don't know what it is with PF debaters either stealing prep or stealing speech time, but I'm not here for your shenanigans. There should not be more than a 0:10 difference between your timer and mine, and I stop flowing at the timer. I will deduct speaks if this comes up.

I have limited experience judging debate. I've been a High School Social Studies teacher for 10 years. Please make sure to provide evidence for arguments, speak slowly and I prefer depth of argument over quantity of argument.

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I teach at GDS in the summer.

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll put my pen down if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

Isidore Newman '15; LSU '19 (BS Biochem, BA Sociology), LSUHSC '24 - CARE BSN

email: scohen74@yahoo.com

(please copy me when sharing docs)

I debated JV and V starting in eighth grade at Newman, and continued throughout my senior year. I competed on the local, regional, and national circuits from my first year to my last in LD, extemp, and impromptu.

At LSU I graduated with a BS in Biochemistry and a BA in Sociology. I graduated from the Roger Ogden Hadfield Honors College with College Honors, and from the Distinguished Communicator and Distinguished Researcher programs. While I did not compete in college, I did judge.

Things to consider:

- Expect me to flow the round. I haven't judged on the national circuit or debated on the national circuit in a while, so I can understand you while spreading, but I do still appreciate the performance element to debate. I can appreciate speed, so use your best judgement on how fast you should go (Hint: start slow, and then maybe pick it up; there is a way to eloquently demonstrate strong speaking ability and speed, which can be rewarded). I would appreciate it if you slow down for tags or anything else blippy you're really trying to stress, though.

- Tell me which part of the debate comes first and why you're winning it. I am not very particular about the types of arguments you run, but tell me why they are important and why you're winning them. Maybe this is old-fashioned of me, but I also like voters at the end. I should know by the time you get to them where you're winning, but clarify.

- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there. Also, please don't extend dropped points in your last speech. If they are that valuable, this should have been brought up earlier.

- Lastly, be kind. If you are rude or don't stay professional, I reserve the right to dock you a few speaker points, as a result.

Feel free to email me, ask me questions before the round, etc. I am more than happy to answer them. For the most part I’m pretty go with the flow (pun intended), so just enjoy the round and remember debate is meant to be something we do for fun.

About Me:

I'm a 5th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Former high school and college policy debater. More partial to critical arguments and theory but definitely enjoy thoughtful, strategic policy oriented arguments.

Affs: Make sure you're different from the status quo.

Negs: Make sure your disad links actually link. Make sure your counterplans and K alternatives are competitve.

I won't do any mental gymnastics for you. Be polite, learn, and have fun.

Former High School and College Policy Debater.

email: karidebate@gmail.com

My general policy for judging is to be open to hearing ANY argument you wish to run and also open to VOTING on that argument if you can win it. But please note: I refuse to do any work for you. I will evaluate only what is said in the debate. I do not count points made in cross examination UNLESS they are mentioned/utilized in a speech.

Affs: I am open to hearing whatever kind of Aff you choose to run, be it a Plan , a K , or Performance. My only stipulation is that the Aff must deviate from the Squo in some substantial manner.

Counterplans: Love a good CP, but it better be competitive. Also there needs to be some Net Benefit to the counterplan.

Disads: I am all about the links. Please have good links. Arguments like 1% risk of a link are not persuasive to me and exposes the weakness of your links.

Kritiks: I was partial to the K when I debated so I am always happy to see a K ran properly. That being said, please do not assume I know your authors, please have some knowledge of your own authors. Please do not run a K that you have never read, researched, or argued. Please do a lot of work on the link debate and explain to me why i should prefer the alternative.

Theory: Love some good theory. I think most teams have theory as an afterthought. Please Dont. Properly debated theory will get you far in front of me.

Pet Peeves

- Stealing Prep

- Rudeness: debate is supposed to be both educational and fun. Be kind to each other.

i have coached LD for 24 years, so am a more traditional judge. I believe in the importance of value / criterion debate. I don't mind speed.

I teach physics at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans. I retired from coaching at the end of the 2014-2015 school year. I primarily coached public address speech events and some LD. In the fall semester of 2019-2020, I have not judged any rounds on any topic. You will need to explain topic-specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you would normally. You will also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so I can adjust to you.

Below I’ve included some more detail concerning my philosophy.

Speed

Fast is fine, provided clarity does not suffer. However, debaters often go faster than they are physically capable of speaking, resulting in portions of arguments that cannot be reasonably understood by an actively-listening judge. I won't read cards after the round to compensate for your lack of clarity, nor will I say "clearer" during your speech. It is my firmly-held belief that the responsibility of transferring the information from your brain into mine falls on you as the speaker, not on me as the judge.

Theory

Theory should not be run for the sake of theory. Argue abuse if it's obviously occurring. But make sure you tell me precisely WHY your think your ground is being violated. Be specific: what reasonable argument(s) are you unable to run because of what your opponent did? If it's clear that running theory is how you came into the round expecting to win, you'll probably not like the results. Theory is a Plan B, period. If your opponent's interpretation, framework, or contention-level arguments really do leave you no alternative, I totally get it and won't punish you for addressing it, but reasonable people can always tell whether a theory position has real merit or is just BS. If it's BS, I will give the alleged offender a lot of leeway.

I am a lay judge with about a year experience judging LD. I’m looking for arguments that are well developed, explained and delivered. A note on spreading: I can generally follow fast reading but if it is too fast and unclear (to a point where I can’t understand you) then I most likely will not vote for you.

I enjoy a substantive debate that has real clash versus unwarranted ideas or ill-linked impacts.

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 *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

PF Argumentation:

I expect PF to be a lay debate. I'm not impressed by the use of debate jargon in rounds and jargon isn't sufficient for arguments. That being said, evidence matters. I expect responses to counterarguments that opponents make, not just pretending they aren’t there and reasserting your initial claims. I don't flow crossfire, but that doesn't mean I'm not listening to it.

LD Argumentation:

I most appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. If fallacies are offered by your opponent and you feel the need to deal with them, do so by pointing out the fault in the logic rather than naming the fallacy.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches. Tell me your assessment of the round and enumerate the reasons you are winning.

I probably lean "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. I can appreciate some Kritik arguments, but I don't really enjoy listening to theory heavy arguments. I'm probably not going to vote on theory unless a debater is being overly abusive.

Value/Value Criterion/Framework - If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

Burdens – Do not try to establish an abusive burden that does not give your opponent any opportunity to win. I will drop you for this.

Sing Posting – Please sign-post so that I know where you are in the flow. Do not just use author’s names to extend arguments. (ie: extend Jones).

Speed - If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery and clear argumentation.

Timing – I expect you to keep your own time. Please do not ask for time signals.

Respect – I expect you to be respectful to both your opponent and your judge. Rudeness will cost you speaker points.

I will be flowing your cases. I don't mind fast delivery, but I don't appreciate spreading. You will have a hard time getting my vote if I could not flow your case due to unintelligible speech.

Weigh your arguments, especially in final focus (I appreciate voters). I expect to hear well-developed pro and con cases about the resolution. I appreciate traditional cases.

History: I am a parent judge and this will be my 4th year judging Speech and Debate. I have judged at our local tournaments, Blue Key, Isidore Newman, and at State.

I am a simple judge

GENERAL

1. I will say clear or slow-But please don't make me- slow on tags and evidence

2. If I don't have the doc don't plan on spreading

3. I don't have a preference to what you run K's, LARP etc. as long as you can defend your case clearly. If you are spreading make sure you slow down on tag lines.

4. I love smart CX, and I pay close attention to it.

5. Be Eloquent as I do pay attention to that as well

AFF

1.Let Weighing live in LD, I don't want a blitz of back file answers without leveraging the AC- then whats the point besides wasting 6 minuets?

2. I know there is a skew! Please don't waste more time complaining about it, it is an acceptable standard in a counter interp or just argument but shouldn't be the the main point of the 1AR, the more time you spend, the less i'll buy it.

3. Not super familiar w/ performance/Non t affs but please go for it- just break it down and you'll be fine

Neg

1. I won't vote you down but i'll kill your speaks if you run more than 5 off that are all condo, it always leads to bad debate- I'm generally good with condo but 5 or more off is just abusive

2. I expect clear articulation of what operates on the highest layer, K or Theory- If they go for one and you don't kick the other i'll assume risk of offense so for your benefit be clear

Please Note: I don't disclose. when you see it you will see critique clearly showing what and why.

email the doc to gskindra@yahoo.com

Hello! My name is Michael Kurian and I did Natcircuit LD for 2 years at Dulles High School in Houston, TX.
I had 5 career bids and qualled to the TOC as a junior and senior. I also did a bit of policy as a senior and qualled to NSDA in CX.

Yes, email chain me friends:

Mkdebate@gmail.com

Kritiks: 1
Phil: 1
Theory: 2-3
LARP: 2
Tricks: 3-4

Do whatever you want, some things tho

1. I will say clear and slow if you're incoherent. I have ADHD and will lose focus if the debate has 5+ shells and every single sentence refers to a specific line by line argument. Extremely dense theory debates are not good for me and I will vote on overviews and voting issues, ignoring line by line concerns sometimes. I would not recommend you debate like this infront of me.

2. I dislike theory when frivolous (you know what "frivolous" means) but will vote on it. This means yes, I will vote on it, but I give the opposing side a ton of leeway. If the aff makes a bad I meet or has marginal offense on a really dumb shell like "Link chains bad" I will err that way. I like theory when strategic, but LOVE it when there is legit especially if you use creative interps or good combo shells. My favorite theory shell is O-Spec :)

3. Lets say you read a dump of some kind and you don't flash the arguments to the room. If your opponent asks you to flash them during CX or prep, you will do so. Otherwise, I will eviscerate your speaks.

4. You're allowed to be a jerk proportionally to the amount of foolery going on in the debate
ex. If the aff has 3 NIBS, you can be a little mad. If the 1NC is racism good, you can be furious etc.

5. I dislike partial disclosure shells ie. "Must disclose Plan Text of new aff, must open source, etc."; Disclosure is simple - if you've read it, disclose it. All of it. If you haven't broken it yet, you don't owe your opponent jack. You can give them the ROB text or the plan text if you're feeling benevolent.

Exceptions:

*****I will NOT vote on ****

1) Brackets theory
2) Font theory
3) Arguments that are explicitly homophobic, racist, or otherwise bigoted.
4) Evaluate the debate at X speech (no - I will eval the whole debate regardless)
5) New affs bad (but "Must disclose plantext/framework" is fine)
6) Arguments that exclusively link to your opponents/your identity without structural warrants- ex. "White ppl should lose", "vote for me cuz im X minority group"
7) Must Disclose Round Reports



Kritik:

This is the form of debate that I did the most in high school. I will probably understand your insane postmodern nonsense as long as you understand it enough to explain the application back to me. Race and Id pol Ks are fine

1) Link work - really important.

2) Alternative explanation - I have a somewhat low threshold; I'll assume it solves case and the K's links unless that is contested by the Affirmative

3) WEIGH with the ROLE of the BALLOT - tell me why your pedagogy is important, why it belongs in debate, and how we can use it to derive the best form of praxis. If you aren't doing these things, you will probably lose to a more intuitive RoB.

Things I don't like but will still vote on:

1) Kritikal presumption arguments

2) Links of Ommission

3) Lazy, overused link arguments

4) edgy jargon that stays edgy jargon (explain ur stuff at SOME point at least)




Framework:

Love it, think its cool and underused.
.

Do lots of weighing and explain why your framework resolves meta-ethical problems -- Infinite regress, Constitutivism, Actor spec. etc. If not, tell me why it should be preferred over another framework. I don't like particularism (or rather I like it as an ethical theory, but think it is weird when used in debate); my favorite frameworks to hear are Pragmatism and Virtue Ethics.


LARP:

I prob went for a DA 2 times in my entire career lol. Just do weighing and warrant comparison. It's a relatively intuitive debate style and if it doesn't seem so, I'm not one to say, but you might be doing it wrong. I'm a sucker for good IR analysis. If you understand how States function in relation to eachother and can use concrete examples in explanations I'll be persuaded and also boost your speaks.


Theory:

Weigh. Make good arguments or make really creative bad arguments. Failure to do either will make me sad.

On the Theory vs K debate:

1. If the AC references the topic heavily, is strongly in the direction of the topic, defends implementation, and/or in some other way grants you your topic ground, don't whine and call me a K-hack when I err aff against whatever shell you read. If they're doing everything within reason to grant you your prep, and I still hear 9+ mins of crying in the 1NC and 2N about how you have LITERALLY ZERO GROUND™ I'm going to be much more likely to vote the other way. That being said, if you genuinely feel like the aff is out of the range of the topic or is straight up non-T, go for T, or T - Framework, and go as hard as you want.

2. Reading disclosure against K affs is a good strat.



Tricks:

I just evaluate it the same way I would a bs-heavy theory or framework debate, which lets be honest, is what this is.
Paradoxes, Aprioris, and presumption/skep triggers are all fine.



Things I'll boost your speaks for:


Naruto Reference in speech: +.1
Dressing like you don't give a crap: +.1
Cool Affirmatives: +.3
Solid Collapsing: +.5
Ethos: +.2
Creative arguments: +.2

Speak Breakdown:

30: straight fire
29.5-29.9: ur fire
28.6 - 29.4: You good
28.1-28.5: meh
27.1-28: oof
26.1-27: big oof
25.1-26: go to church dude lol
25: f you

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 am open to nearly any argumentation that you can come up with as long as you have evidence and good rhetoric to back it up. I am okay with speaking fast, but do not spread. If I cannot understand you because you are speaking too fast I will stop flowing. Please be cordial in rounds, and while I love passion in a debate if you are flat out rude it will show on the ballot.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Parent Judge. I've got some limited previous experience judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. Please don't spread. Please make sure you focus on connecting to the topic and having clear impacts that make it easy to vote at the end of the debate. My only experience is with traditional LD so please be aware of that!

Background/Experience: Former LD debater for Isidore Newman School in New Orleans, Louisiana. Currently a high school social studies teacher with a focus on global topics and United States government.

Preferences:

1. Speed/Clarity. I can handle fast conversational pace, but I'm not going to be able to flow auctioneer speed. I vote from the flow, so if you want me to be able to write it down, slow down a bit.

2. Signpost. Telling me what argument you are responding to makes it much easier for me to track where I am on the flow. This helps you when it comes to voting.

3. Value Debate. LD demands the value debate. Explain why you achieve your value and your opponent cannot.

4. Remain professional and respectful to both your opponent and the judge.

“Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity.”

General

Speed: If you want to spread, that is your choice, but you do so at your own risk. You must be intelligible and in my experience most who spread are not intelligible. If I can't understand you, then the quality of your arguments, cards, etc. doesn't matter.

Sportsmanship: The purpose of debate is to demonstrate your knowledge of the topic, your ability to articulate an argument, and respond to an opposing argument. Being disrespectful of your opponents, mean-spirited, or overly aggressive toward your opponents demonstrates none of these things. In fact, it suggests that you are weak in these areas and thus improper conduct actively works against you.

Invoking the rules of debate: I understand the rules of what can/cannot be said at different stages of a debate. When debating, focus on the merits of your case or challenging the merits of the opposing arguments. Do not focus on trying to nitpick about rules and how your opponents violated them. If there is a rules infraction, I will take that into account. You need not point it out to me. Your responsibility is to make a good AFF/NEG argument and demonstrate the weakness of your opponent's argument. It is not job to use the rules as a cudgel to try and win the round.

Never forget that the most important thing is to enjoy the experience and see it is an opportunity to learn and think deeply about topics that you would probably never encounter in a high school class.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum Debate

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. Obviously preparation and good use of cards is essential. It is not just about offering opinions. That being said, simply reading a card is does not make an argument and it will not win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions. You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. I do listen closely during cross, so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want certain things to be fully considered, please include them during your speeches.

Should you run progressive theory in LD? No!!!. Lincoln-Douglas is an event in which debaters debate both sides of a given resolution. Progressive theory does not sufficiently engage the resolution. Moreover it does not employ the skills or proficiencies that LD seeks to cultivate.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

I am a traditional LD judge and I would like to see clear speaking, well explained warrants, and good signposting. I have only judged on traditional circuits and am more experienced with traditional debate. I believe that debate is meant to be a communicative event and I will rely on your presentation and argumentation to cast my ballot instead of comparing your evidence to your opponent's on the speech doc. No one issue or impact within a round can win you the debate. You must holistically defend your side of the resolution and win a majority of the arguments at hand. That being said, I prefer traditionally structured cases with framework at the top and contentions. For the neg, I would rather you run progressive arguments like theory/T, DAs, Ks, and CPs as contentions rather than off case arguments (more on that below). Overall, I rather traditional arguments but I will be willing to listen to any argument type as long as it can be presented clearly.

You can email me your speech doc at cyolivier@gmail.com. I am unlikely to rely on it or reference it unless you are spreading (which I would advise against) or if clipping/abusive cutting comes up in the round.

I have some experience in debating, so I should be able to catch most arguments. CLARITY IS KEY, if I can’t understand your argument then I will not evaluate it. I AM A FLOW JUDGE. Tell me how to judge and frame the round. Voters is very important.

Framing informs impacts. Use your framework to emphasize your impacts.

You must have a good reason to call out evidence - arguments about the evidence being old must prove why the card in question must be recent and arguments about why the author is bad must have a real warrant.

I don’t time prep, but don’t abuse please (opponent can time you)

Make sure you make eye contact and show you believe what you're saying. Your speaker points will reflect.

I don’t mind handshakes. It doesn’t really matter to me.

Also, if you make a car joke and is funny, I'll give you an extra speaker point.

I've done LD for 4 yrs in high school, but it's been 5 yrs since then. Try to keep as stock as possible and the spreading to a minimum, and we should be fine! You're better off taking a more lay approach with me, then I can exercise my past experience more appropriately given how long I've been away from the debate space. Any other specifics questions will be answered in person to the best of my ability, so try to get to the round early!

If there is an email chain, please add me to it. Email: Rohanrereddy@gmail.com

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

Background: I debated at Holy Cross School for 4 years with 3 of those years being in LD.

General: I’m pretty much open to voting on whatever argument as long as you warrant it well and make it clear how it interacts with other arguments.

If you know you definitely won the round, you don’t need to use all of your speech time. Your speaks will be rewarded.

Your speed will probably not be an issue however your clarity will be. If you’re unclear, I will stop flowing (Read UPDATE BELOW).

Policy arguments: I’m a fan of policy arguments, and I’m best at evaluating these types of debates. CP’s and DA’s are cool with me.

K’s: I like well-thought-out K debates, and bad K debates make me shudder. I’m pretty good with mainstream k’s, but high theory k's need to be explained more. The more specific the links the better off you are, and you should be able to articulate the world of the alt.

Topicality: I like topicality. In these debates, clear impact calc and standards comparison are especially important.

Theory: I greatly dislike frivolous theory; I’ll still vote on it if you win the argument, but don’t expect amazing speaks. My threshold for responses to these arguments are very very low. Of course, if there’s real abuse, then go ahead and read theory to your heart’s content.

Framework: These debates can be quite interesting, but they are often muddled. PLEASE be comparative and weigh well in these debates.

Tricks: I will not intervene and vote against you if you utilize this style of debate, but I will not be happy voting on them. I strongly recommend against reading these types of arguments.

Speaks: Things that will help your speaks: Being funny, reading unique and interesting arguments, and just being strategic.

UPDATE for Holy Cross (Sept. 2020):

- Go slower – 70-80% of your normal speed. Also, DO NOT spread your analytical arguments -- the online format is not conducive to understanding you. If I say clear more than twice and you don't adjust, I will stop flowing.

- Record a local copy of your speech. I will under no circumstance have someone re-give a speech if they drop out or if there are major audio glitches during the speech.

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am the Director of Debate at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I default techy truth>tech/truth. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. During the time of virtual tournaments, I am going to need for you to slow it down a bit. If you want to gradually get faster as the round goes, that is fine. I will say clear as often as I need. After coaching and judging debates, I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, mention that in the signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed argument to many. However, its your world. Just don't assume I got everything you said.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

Harvard Update

Tech Issues: Be sure to make a local recording of your speeches. If you disconnect, this will be the only way that I will evaluate the content of that speech. I find this to be the most equitable way to deal with this issue.

Theory: I am a firm believer in the power of theory to check abuse in debate. We need it. When done correctly it is truly one of my favorite arguments to evaluate in rounds. More often than not, they end in one side being called some ad hominem, then a cat fight about what happened in pre-round prep ensues. Sigh. So what I am going to do is set up how I evaluate theory, period. You have a shot at convincing me to evaluate it differently, but you will have to be very persuasive.

I default competing interpretations. I don't think that is too hard to do. If you have offense about how violating the interp means your opponent is racist, sexist, abelist. I am going to hold that interpretation to the ultimate degree. These type of accusations matter. We live in a society where these isms affect peoples lives. I do not deny the impact that they have in this debate space, as one of my favorite coaches likes to say, "I have the receipts". However PSAs addressed as Theory shells(and to the same degree Ks) do not warrant my ballot. As a result, ink based concessions do not replace work here. Show me how violating the interpretation leads to the voters you claim. I need this in theory debates! If we are going to discuss good norms for debate, I think that we shouldn't be disingenuous and claim that our norm is what black, queer, womxn, trans, people with disabilities, etc. NEED to make debate a safe place for them. There are quite a few structures that exist in debate that makes life hard for a lot of people, your shell will not solve it. If I don't feel as though following the interp resolves the voters, I am not voting on the shell, period. As the debater who introduces theory, you have the obligation to convince me that your interp is the norm we should follow. I am just not going to check in for conceded theory without a good ballot story anymore.

TFA Update

WSD

Hello!

Very excited to judge world schools. I've judged it a few times over the past couple of years (because I'm usually in LD and Policy land). I did it in high school as well.

The biggest thing I want to see in rounds is impacting and weighing. Don't just recap the argument for me, tell me what happens and why it is important. Otherwise, you should be just fine!

2022 UPDATE

I've been mostly judging/working with WSD this year so my ability to flow spreading is honestly terrible. I can handle above conversation speed but past that you run the risk of me missing things. All my preferences on arguments are the same but the way you deliver has to change. 

*********

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting. 

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

UPDATED: 3/24/2023

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm JD Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

Director of Debate for The Altamont School. Former college and high school policy debater.

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org

ALL DEBATE:

Open to most arguments and styles. The default for my ballot is that it goes to the team that did the best debating, and I look to the debaters to assist with a metric for how to answer that question. My judging process is usually pretty simple:

1. What framework am I using to evaluate the arguments (content and form)?
2. What impacts are reasonably in the game and to what degree does each team gain access from solvency or turns?
3. What outweighs?

-Speed: 7.5/10. Debate is a communication-based activity. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for being intelligible; you still have the burden of communicating what you’re reading. It's in your best interest to go slower in a T/theory debate if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line.

-Disclosure/Wiki: I believe in disclosure and the wiki, but I am not a fan of many of the theory violations that proliferate (unless specified in tournament rules). I do not believe posting interps on the wiki changes anything. You're still welcome to go for all of the above.

-Ev Sharing: This is not just because "someone is spreading." Ev sharing should be a norm so that this activity which is all about engaging evidence can do the best job possible. Following the success of Policy since Verbatim boom in 2007 on this issue, email chains should be set up before the round starts with speech docs sent right before their speech. However, I'm not going to get live about it unless ongoing sharing method is clearly not working. Only the person speaking next needs to immediately send doc; next speaker should be given the opportunity to make decisions about what they're going to say.

-K: This is where I spent most of my time as a debater, but that doesn't mean I know your specific lit. I believe if the K has a framework that demands I don't evaluate Aff impacts and the Aff loses framework.... then they don't get to weigh the Aff. Saying "we get to weigh the aff because we get to weigh the aff" is not inherently persuasive given the presence of offense against that stance. The Aff must win framework or in-roads to weigh the Aff. If that's primarily justified by fairness then fairness needs to be impacted out over Neg's justification to exclude.

-Teams may read or perform whatever arguments they want regardless of circuit or opponent. The burden is on the opponent to generate offense as to why it shouldn't happen. While might knee-jerk this as a callous disposition, but any other approach is rooted in judge intervention and legislating an interpretation as to what counts as legitimate, which is seeping with bias. If the opponent requests the other team does not ________ (read "progressive" arguments, spread, etc.), the team always has the choice as to whether to respect it. Conversely, the opponent is given a stronger link on any theory argument as to why the team's practices were bad.

PUBLIC FORUM - SUBSTANCE

-I reward specificity and nuance of arguments (ex: specific democracies backsliding vs general democratic backsliding; counter specific proliferation vs generic prolif bad)

-I am not part of the cult of numbers. 25,000 people suffering from gingivitis does not inherently outweigh an unquantified risk of nuclear war because you have a number. Numbers help contextualize impacts and risk pathways, but it is not game over because a team has expert analysis that doesn't have explicit quantification.

-No new args in Final Focus

PUBLIC FORUM -- EVIDENCE

Evidence practices in public forum are atroious. Judging is in-part complicit. Here is how I go into the round thinking about evidence norms:

I default to tournament rules first, and then enforce the NSDA established protocols in the official Unified Manual (specifically pages 29-33) for what’s required in debates in terms of having cards ready for opponents and judges with proper citation. This is not a “personal choice,” even if other judges choose not to enforce it.

I am very willing to vote on evidence theory; good theory debating will have a clear interpretation (the NSDA unifed manual makes this easy), the violation, and the reason why your interpretation is preferable ("it's in the rules, judge" is sufficient, but higher speaker points for identifying educational standards for why we need your interp's evidence practices). But if you're going to do it you need to be ready to stake and stop the round on it.

The other team is entitled to any and all evidence you claim to read in a speech immediately. Yes, all, and preferably in order. If you can stake a debate on any piece of evidence you just read it is unreasonable to say that you don't have to send everything cited, especially since they can't predict what you might blow up yet. Don't hold up the round searching.

Paraphrasing: The NSDA stance is clear and codified in the Unified Manual and explained in Pilot Rules 2019-20. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but you still have to have evidence paraphrased available in card format for in-round engagement and judge decision making. In other words, It is not enough to develop consensus that paraphrasing is unfair or educational -- it must have a substantive defense of rejecting rules from the same document that sets up agreed upon speech times, topic commitment, etc. for me to even consider it a ballot issue.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

-I come into LD from policy, so you can run traditional case structure or multiple off-case positions that test the Aff. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, K Affs that don't defend the res/a plan, T, Theory, I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments a priori, NIB, trick, etc. args that troll LD. The burden remains with the debater to make it into a lucid argument I can grasp and understand as offense. I can't explain what a NIB is, but you're welcome to try to explain it to me in a way that is conducive to me re-explaining it in an RFD.

-Good value framework debate presents clear offense as to why yours is the preferable model and helps you win the impact calculation debate, not just descriptions of what a moral systems looks like. No need to get lost in the sauce either. Yes, you have to have it to weigh impacts, but sometimes LDers are guilty of reading value framing that they think is "neat philosophy," but doesn't serve much purpose offensively.

-It is a hard sell to say 1AR doesn't get theory. The 1AC should not have disinvest time to theoretically preempt all potential neg strats, methods, etc.

Original Paradigm:

I am a parent judge who has judged only traditional debate. While I can understand faster than a conversational pace, please do not spread. I will not vote for something I can't understand. Also, I much prefer if you debate topically, and will not vote on non topical affs. I do not like theory and am not likely to vote on it, and I will not vote on tricks or skepticism. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round!

UPDATE FOR NOVEMBER 2019:

(Written by Joey Tarnowski)

So as of now, there's probably a little more argument flexibility to be had. Skep, most theory args (the more friv, the worse) and basically all kritiks are probably a no. Also you should prob keep spreading to a minimum (read: DON'T DO IT) but kinda fast is prob alright. Most non-cheaty cp's are probably okay, but pics and advantage CPs will just need a little explanation. Disads are fine, but the strat here should prob be more of a "turns case" strat than an extinction scenario. The more links in the link chain, the less likely it is you'll win on it. T on plans is probably fine, but you should prob default to a reasonability standard cause the stuff about frivolous theory applies here too. TLDR; most util strats are prob your best bet, but probability>magnitude should be what frames whatever you're running.

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Tom%20Aff

Neg: https://hsld17.debatecoaches.org/Strake%20Jesuit/Tom%20Neg

Judge for Height High School (TX)

PGP: she/her/hers

Please add me to the email chain trinidadnatalie20@gmail.com

I debated policy for Height High School for three years, but I have some understanding of LD.

For the first two years of my debate career my partner and I ran soft left plans, however, for my last year of debate we ran a non-topical performance.

As a judge:

I tend to default to truth > tech, but that doesn’t mean I’m completely opposed to alternative. Please signpost this includes listing the flow order. I encourage you to use analytics because I feel like relying solely on cards doesn’t allow for a well rounded debate.

I will not tolerate rude debaters. I suggest you adapt to an opponent who is less experienceD as you would with a judge that is less experienced. I will not hesitate to vote you down if you direct slurs or insults at your opponents.

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves your laptop

The longer I was a debater I grew to understand why closed cx is necessary for actually understanding the round. I also think that you become a better debater if you engage in quality cx.

Affirmative:

I’m okay with both stock affs and kritikal affs. For stock affs I’ll evaluate almost all advantages but I prefer more structural violence advantages. I’m not familiar with k-affs but I won’t stop you from running them in round. Please make it explicit to me what the affirmative is doing. I really enjoy performance affirmatives so feel free to run performance in front of me. Non-topical aff are okay in specific instances just make sure that you’re being non-topical for a good reason. If you read a non-topical aff be prepared for your opponent to run TVA arguments.

CPs and DAs:

I have no problem with you reading CPs or DAs. If you read a CP make it explicit why its competitive. If you’re reading a DA I’d suggest that your link evidence is specific.

Theory:

As a debater I didn’t run theory often, so I can’t say that it’s the best argument to run in front of me. I don’t mind theory but if you are running Theory make sure that its good and easy to understand.

Kritiks:

As a judge I enjoy identity based kritiks but I’m not familiar with a lot of the literature. I’m not the biggest fan of Cap K but I won’t hold it against you if you read it. When it comes to K’s with dense literature (Deleuze/Baudrillard), I would suggest not to read it in front of me just because I’m not familiar with it. If you run a K make sure your link is specific and that you explain your alternative. If I don’t understand what your alternative does I won’t vote for you despite “extensions”.

I am a math teacher and speech and debate coach at Purvis High School in Purvis, MS. Our primary focus as a team is on speech and interp events, so my experience with debate events is rudimentary.

I judge LD debate, where I would prefer that debaters not spread. I judge primarily on the flow with an emphasis on value and criterion, but I do give a higher weight to presentation than do many debate judges. I feel that debate should not just be an exercise in logic and evidence (though that is the focus), but should also reflect the reality that the way in which information is presented affects its persuasiveness.

I debated LD and Policy all throughout high school. In college I judged tournaments in Utah, Arizona and California.

While judging, I like debaters to tell me why they should win. By this I mean clearly state which of your arguments (contentions) I should flow through. The ones your opponent hasn't addressed are easy. With the contentions they have addressed, tell me why your argument is better (you have better sources, better stats, etc.). Many judges will circle the contentions they think you have won and draw an arrow across the flow sheet. Think of these as points for your side. But, I prefer you to tell me which of these you have won and why. I don’t mind spreading, just make sure you don’t transition to jibberish. Learn to read your judges. If I put my pen down, I probably can’t understand you.

I’m a flow judge, avoid progressive.

The best advice I have is to relax and have fun! Debate shouldn't be torture--tournaments should be fun. Let’s face it, most people are terrified of public speaking. Debate tournaments give you the chance to practice critical skills you’ll use the rest of your life, both personally and professionally.

Good Luck!

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

James Bowie 19

Tulane 23

email: tweston@tulane.edu

I debated on the Texas circuit for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year.

I'm teaching (or have taught at) NSD Flagship/Texas, TDC, Flex Debate.

TLDR- I like most arguments. I read mostly critical positions but would prefer you to just read whatever you are best at- persuasion is important to me because i don't want to be bored.

no excuse for being late to online debate - log in and keep you mic off while u prep- speaks will suffer if this doesn’t happen

Speaks-

They start at 28.5. I will evaluate speaks based on strategy but also ethos and knowledge of your position. I'll also index to the quality of the pool and if you keep me interested the entire debate I will reward +++. I'm not going to disclose them-- chill you infomaniacs.

K affs and T FW-

I like them but I'd prefer them to be grounded in some way to the topic. I don't care if you are sketchy initially but please make the 1ar overview or something clear. Judging vs T FW-- I have no biases here, but would prefer substantive engagement with a c/i or something in addition to impact turns. Also, impact turns need to be fleshed out and specific. If your reading T fw im more persuaded by fairness arguments and a TVA.

Policy args--

These are fine, I never really read these. But I can prob judge them fine, just don't assume I understand the intricacies of the topic. Also please weigh. I believe in 0% risk. I don't like dumb perms. Please collapse.

K's--

Read what you like. I am familiar with a lot of the lit but will just go along with whatever your spin/interpretation is. the 1NC needs to answer in some capacity prempts in the 1AC. Good debates here are what will get the highest speaks.

KvK-

I have found myself judging a lot of these debates so I added this section. I like big-picture overviews that are clear. These dont need to be very long but i want to clearly be able to identify the tension point of the debate. I also want synthesis in the 2nr- this means i want you to not just extend particular parts of your critique but explain them in context with 1ar args-- implicit clash will only go so far.

Theory--

default - DD, CI, no rvi. Weigh in the 2NR/ar. I was never in love with theory debate and am probably not the best judge for multiple shell debates. I will evaluate k first args but default to theory first.

Phil and tricks--

will judge these styles of debate but will not promise to judge them well. NOTE-- for me to vote on dumb arguments i require you to have a high amount of ethos ie if i am not feeling like your argument is persuasive in this context i will not be inclined to vote for it. I also wont feel bad randomly deciding im not voting for your argument if it is akin to must [insert random thing] theory.

Extra-

-If you are debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower and be nice to them-- these debates were always awkward for me.

- fine with speed, sit where you want, flex prep is fine.

- I will give you a 28.9+ if you sit down early and win-- tell me if your sitting down early bc i wont be timing- i dont want to hear you ramble.

- 2NR/2AR overviews are v persuasive to me - don't expect me to piece together a ballot story - collapse and tell me in 10secs at the beginning of your speech what my RFD should be

Influential Judges: Kris Wright, Sam Azbel, Momo Khattak, and Saeshin Joe

My name is Darius White and I debated at C.E. Byrd High School for 4 year and debate for the University of Oklahoma currently.

Speaker Points: I generally give fairly high speaks, and I understand that their is going to be some rudeness in the debate, but try not to over-do because that will be a speak-point decrease. Also stealing prep, and speaking CONSTANTLY during your partners speech will drop your speeches quite a bit, but I usually try to be generous with the speaks.

Cross-X: I defer c-x being binding (unless told otherwise but they need to be nuanced, not tag line extensions of theory shells) and tend to flow c-x

After-round evaluation of evidence: I will try as best as possible to not call for evidence unless you are highly reliant on one piece of evidence in your last speeches, and/or evidence is into question (i.e. if you call for me to look at a piece of evidence after round), but other than that I tend to try to judge the debate on the actually speeches given by the debaters.

Theory: I have a high threshold for theory arguments and hate when teams spray through your theory blocks; I usually default to reasonability and reject-the-arguments-not-the-team
unless you win the abuse story i.e. I don't think one conditional advocacy destroys aff ground so just try to be reasonable and very persuasive when going for theory.

Disads/CP's: Impact calculation is always a good idea, and even though I am more on the K side of debate, I am down to listen to a really technical CP/DA as a net-benefit debate, so don't be shy to run these arguments in front of me. But, I feel that the CP does need a net-benefit for me to vote for it, so if the 2NR is just CP with no net-benefits, I will have a hard time finding reasons why I should vote for the CP. Turns case arguments on the DA are always tight.

Impact Turns: I really enjoy these types of debates, and they are very persuasive in my opinion, so if you got any in your files, I am down to listen.

Kritiks: I hate when teams read a random K that they have no idea what it means or says, and that is always a pet peeve. Don't run a K in front that you are not comfortable going for, but if you are very well at going for a specific criticism then do your thing because I am more familiar with this side of the debate. I feel that the alternative portion of the K is very under utilized and would like to be a debate I would want to see, but if your thing is going to turns case, then do your thing.

Framework: This is the argument I least agree with but if will listen and flow if required.

Flashing: I don't count flashing as prep unless you are taking hella a lot of time in which I will inform you that I am about to start your prep time; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not steal prep.

Random shit: I like jokes, and making me laugh usually gets you some where speak point wise. Using historical references is always a good idea and paints a better picture on the impact calc. Remember to jump your cards over before the speech, and if you read any new cards that aren't on the flash, flash them before c-x or before the next speech is about to start, this is not prep time.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me: darius12456@gmail.com

I competed in Georgia and on the national circuit in PF for my first three years, then LD senior year.

In LD I think that the framework debate is very important (at least in stock cases). That's not to say it needs to be a large part of the debate (if there aren't competing frameworks don't try to debate frameworks...), but rather it should give me a system to weigh your arguments under. If you aren't winning your framework, do work under your opponent's framework so you are at least competitive in the round.

Run whatever arguments you want. I'm not going to drop you for running a K, a plan, thoery, or whatever else you want. Just make sure you can explain your position well and it's well thought out, not simply meant to confuse your opponent or me.

I'm fine with spreading, but if you plan to spread please flash/email your opponent and me your case.

I won't run prep for flashing/emailing but be reasonable.

Flex prep is fine if your opponent is okay with it.

*****IF MY CAMERA IS NOT ON I AM NOT THERE******

I have a philosophy degree from Loyola and last debated for GSU (2n). I have a background in coaching, judging, and debating LD, PF, and Policy and I have been working at camps for 6 years (GDS, UNT, Hdc, and Snfi). Currently coaching for CKM. I will listen to most arguments as long as I do not find them offensive. I prefer clarity over speed- that being said I am perfectly fine with speed. If I have to call clear more than three times I will stop flowing. I will listen to pretty much any arg pending heinous claims. However, I typically only like to vote on theory arguments in which the violation can actually be resolved by the ballot. Can go either way on tricks, but I don't hate creative attempts at securing the ballot. Please for the love of everything... do not run a tva arg in front of me because we are both gonna be upset. My threshold for granting the tva is incredibly high and this is probably the only argument I really dont love hearing. It is unlikely I will vote on T. Definitely K leaning in terms of what I am most familiar with.

tldr; pref me as a k judge

Online:

My connection is not the best- please include your analytics in your speech doc and make my life a lot easier. Reduce your speed by 10-15%.

My email is: williams.aurelia@gmail.com

I determine winners by their use of evidence, argumentation, presentation, and language skills. I do not like off-case arguments, and I want some clash. Debate is a speaking event, so I should be able to follow what you say. If I have to rely on documentation that you send me, then I will evaluate your case in my role as a composition instructor and I will still determine the winner according to the verbal arguments.

I do not disclose win/loss at the end.

NSDA Adjudicating Speech & Debate and Cultural Competence certified.

I have taught ELA at the high school and college level with an emphasis on writing for 15 years. 5 of those years have focused on persuasive writing. This is my first year to coach speech and debate.

I have the most experience with IPDA, LD, and BQ debates, but I have little or no experience with policy debates, Congress, World School, or other competitions that follow rules of order.

I average judging multiple rounds at 1 tournament a month.