About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

I'm a former high school LD-er who did extemporaneous speaking on the side. I now teach at a university and spend far too much time correcting work that is poorly thought out or communicated. I have been judging LD and PF for four years now and have prior judging experience in college.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Lincoln-Douglas debate is a public speaking event (per NSDA) in which a value proposition is debated. The focus in LD is on a deliberative style of argument that identifies and argues for or against the fundamental implications of the resolution in terms that are clearly germane to both the meaning and scope of that resolution. Debaters must distinguish between values that are clearly in conflict or at least contrast ("clash") with each other and persuade the judge that certain values take precedence over others. It is not a debate on empirical realities, outcomes, "impacts," plans, or policies. Arguments for the necessity or desirability of a particular position in order to achieve a desired outcome or advocacy for a particular, concrete stance on current events belong to other genres of debate. Evidence cited should be relevant to the value position taken. Citation of evidence does not make up for lack of development, context, argument, or persuasion. As a public performance, LD does not call for rapid-fire delivery (spreading). Arguments have to be articulate and intelligible as they are read (as implied in NSDA evidence rules). This implies the following:

--Do not spread. I'm not allergic, but this is a Policy habit that gets masked as progressive LD. The bottom line: I will not give you credit for parts of your case I cannot understand as it is read. You should be able to do the work in the time allotted.

--Do not offer your case to your opponent to read as you speak. (It happens.) This is a speaking event. As implied in NSDA rules, only what you say is part of your case.

--Do not attempt to overwhelm me or your opponent with a mountain of evidence. Your opponent's job is not to disprove your empirical evidence (impossible to do without specific research; this is not PF or policy debate) but to question the values you claim it supports. That should be the basis of the debate.

--Value debate does not require "impacts." Plans and counterplans are definitely not required, so getting into an argument about somebody's plan or lack of CP only wastes my time and yours and demonstrates that you don't have a grasp of LD fundamentals (or have at least temporarily lost sight of them). Time you spend on plans and impacts is time you are not spending answering your opponent's case based on a value proposition, criteria, and arguments.

PUBLIC FORUM

I do not have strong personal paradigms. If you follow the letter and the spirit of the NSDA rules (no plans or counterplans, no prescribed burdens, etc.), my personal preferences should be unimportant. High school debaters need to demonstrate that they have done some research and understand their own case as well as the broader situation and context of the resolution. Keep in mind that you are talking to an adult with decades of experience and judgment of current affairs. I will definitely not impose my own worldview, but you need to have some context and a rich supply of information for your case, not just some facts you downloaded and can't contextualize. Sources should be verifiable and reputable. I will give credence to an established or known source over an obscure, highly partisan, or less reputable or verifiable one (e.g., advocacy websites, blogs).

I teach at a university. If I make comments about the substance of your case (the topic itself) on your ballot beyond what is offered in the round, it is in a teaching mode. Of course, only what actually comes out in the debate between the two teams is a valid reason for decision.

As the name indicates, Public Forum debate is also a public speaking event. Say it in plain English. Don't spew alphabet soup. I can only judge what I can understand and follow, so be sure to control tone, volume, and velocity.

TRUTH > TECH

I judge PF based not on technical terms but on how comprehensible and sound your arguments about the resolution are. You must obviously follow and rebut your opponents' arguments, but, in my experience, a point-for-point approach can lead to a futile clash of card versus card, which I can't adjudicate. You need to make a claim, provide warrants, and be sure to contextualize it: Why is it relevant? What is the link to the impact? Having a card that contradicts your opponents' card is not the same as successfully rebutting your opponents' argument. You must explain why your argument should take precedence. The more of a grasp you have on the whole issue, the more convincing you'll be. Factoids won't win it. A good story about why your position makes more sense will.

Yes, I pay attention to flow and dropped arguments, but it's your job to listen to and talk to the other team. Don't introduce new material late in the game. Addressing the terms of the resolution is perfectly acceptable. Kritiks should be focused and reasonable. Talk about the resolution or the implied terms of the debate, but don't blow up the debate by going so meta that direct clash is no longer possible. Any debate is conventionally framed by the terms of the resolution and the context of the encounter and has to respect decision criteria on those terms.