TL:DR - I will probably end up voting for whoever does better impact calc and better explains the material implications of what they're saying + don't go too fast. Also I really really hate tricks

I want comprehensive, understandable overviews in every rebuttal. Explain to me what the material implications of your case are - tell me what it looks like for me post-fiat. Also, I'd prefer in the 2nr you went for one, well developed strategy - I can appreciate bold, strategic decisions.

Speed: Persuasive, understandable communication is key. I probably can't understand you if you're spreading because I never did debate myself and haven't been judging for too long. Ultimately, you do you, but at least slow down for your taglines or I just can't keep up and your speaks will reflect that.

Argument preferences:

I'm always gonna be down for a good DA or CP debate - that's probably what you're going to want to do in front of me if you don't want to lose me.

- K Affs - just at least try to make an effort to sound like your topical. I'm probably not going to vote on "topicality is violent" arguments.

- K - I'm definitely not a good judge to go for any high theory K in front of because I almost definitely haven't read any of the same lit you have. That being said, if you explain the material implications of your K and what the alt looks like for the real world - I'll probably vote for it.

- T - win it and I'll vote for it. If you explain the violation well and impact it out and it seems believable, I'll probably vote for it. That being said, fairness is not an impact - it is an internal link to either structural fairness or procedural fairness.

- Theory - just don't be frivolous please, I'm probably not gonna vote on spikes just b/c they're dropped - seems pretty abusive to me.

Speaks: based on organization and time allocation

Summary: 1. if it's not said in this speech i wont flow it to the FF.

2. Collapse down to fewer contentions, and explain why they drop off the flow (wash, block, etc.), but still go line by line as much as possible.

FF- 1. Give me big picture themes that the round has collapsed to. Not just your voters and their voters, collapse on the round as a whole, big picture.

*I dont flow CX so say it again in speech if its important

** I'm ok with speed, but go easy on me its been a few years

*** I HATE EVIDENCE DEBATES. If there is even in the slightest a voter issue/arg in the round relying on the properly cut evidence, then i will call to see the card. I will treat it as a reverse voting issue if the accusing side is wrong to disincentivize wild accusations.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to a non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas is essential to debate.

Debaters should display logic and reasoning, advocate a position, use evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

Neither the pro team nor the con team should offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

I’m a law student at Wake Forest. While I have never debated competitively, I fell in love with arguments, studying economics and philosophy in college. This is my third year judging high school debate. In the past, I have judged LD, PF, and Congress.

General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is about excellence in argumentation, and arguments are a special kind of explanation that uses claims, warrants, and impacts to lead its audience towards the acceptance of particular conclusions. Debaters should keep in mind that the characteristics of a good argument are the characteristics of a good explanation. While debate is more than mere explanation, good explainers and good debaters do the following well:

• use plain language when possible;
• prize clarity above speed or complexity;
• offer a complete explanation of their reasoning, which, in debate, means fully explaining the claim, warrant, and impact of each argument;
• use tags or "sign posts" to organize their speeches in an easy-to-follow way;
• emphasize key concepts or important points through their delivery; and
• keep the big picture in mind by constantly relating sections of their speech back to their bottom-line conclusion.

Many debaters are narrowly focused on beating the other side. While winning is the goal of debate, beating the other side need not be the only strategy one tries. An alternative strategy is to approach each round with the goal of making the other side better. You might try conceding part of your opponent's argument, charitably interpreting part of your opponent's speech, or helping your opponent adopt a stronger premise. Believe it or not, this strategy often wins because it demonstrates confidence in your own arguments and builds credibility with the judge. As an added benefit, it improves the overall level of debate.

How I Evaluate Debates

I take notes during the round (also known as flowing). As soon as the round ends, I reconstruct each argument, giving special attention to what each side told me were the decisive issues in their final speeches. Next, I evaluate each argument with the following questions in mind:

• Logic. Were the claims, warrants, and impacts of each argument fully explained? Were there any gaps or unexplained steps in the reasoning? Did warrants offer strong reasons to back their claims? Did impacts communicate the significance of each claim to the debate overall?
• Evidence. Did the evidence strongly or weakly support the claims it backed? Did the debater state evidence accurately, or was evidence overstated in any way?
• Responsiveness. Did the debater engage with the other side's arguments? Did the debater refute 'straw men' or the other side's actual position?

Understanding an argument is a prerequisite to evaluating it. Unfortunately, I have to disregard any lines of reasoning I cannot understand. An intelligible argument contains a claim, a warrant, and an impact. So, for example, simply saying "my side should prevail because Kant said lying is immoral" does not communicate an intelligible argument. That statement, apart from additional context, is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. I might happen to know that Kant thought lying was immoral because lying violates the categorical imperative, but a different judge with a different background might not. More importantly, by failing to explain what the categorical imperative is and why lying violates it, the hypothetical debater has failed to offer a reason why someone should accept their argument. Having failed to offer any reasons, the debater has failed to engage in rational persuasion at all.

Speed

I acknowledge the benefits of a fast round. Unfortunately, I can only understand 1.5x conversational speed. If I get to the point where I cannot understand you, I will get your attention by saying, "Too fast!" Keep in mind that, by the time I have the chance to speak up, I likely have already missed part of your argument.

Competition-Specific Preferences

• For Congress, I place emphasis on delivery and on how well speeches contribute the deliberative goals of the body.
  
• For LD, I want to see values-based argument somewhere.
• For PF, debaters should focus on empirical argument. Values-based argumentation should take the back seat.
• For LD and PF, points go to the side that can effectively place empirical evidence within value frameworks.

Style Preferences

I will always vote for the strongest argument. However, all else being equal, I prefer:

• A small number of well-coordinated arguments to a great many disjoint ones.
• Nuanced arguments that concretely address the resolution at hand. Ask yourself: Can this argument be easily recycled for use in other resolutions? If the answer is yes, consider tailoring your argument more narrowly to the resolution at hand.

Hello, debaters! I'm Linda Webb coach of Manchester High School, and I've been coaching for five years now, delving into Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congress Debate. While I may not have a formal debate background, my focus is on overall presentation, weighing both arguments and delivery. I appreciate a respectful tone between opponents and prefer a clear, measured pace over spreading.

**Debate:**

**Weighing Arguments:**
I approach debates with a keen interest in both the substance of your arguments and the way you present them. I value well-structured, impactful cases that are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Remember, quality over quantity is key.

**Delivery:**
Effective communication is crucial. Articulate your points clearly, and ensure that your delivery enhances the persuasiveness of your arguments. I appreciate debaters who prioritize clarity over speed.

**Respectful Tone:**
Maintaining a respectful tone is essential. I expect debaters to engage in a civil manner, recognizing the importance of respectful discourse. Rudeness or disrespect will not be looked upon favorably in my evaluations.

**Congress:**

**Parliamentary Proceedings:**
As a Parliamentarian, I defer to the Presiding Officer to run the room efficiently. I actively observe participation, noting who is asking questions, making motions, and contributing positively. Participation and compliance with the Presiding Officer's requests are crucial for a successful session.

**Respect:**
Respect is paramount in the chamber. I expect all participants to engage in a respectful manner, and any lack of respect will be duly noted on your ballot. This applies to interactions with fellow participants, as well as adherence to parliamentary procedures.

**Speech Evaluation:**
In Congress, I look for impactful speeches that clearly convey the reasons why a particular bill or resolution should be passed and become part of American history. Make sure your speeches are well-organized, persuasive, and contribute meaningfully to the overall discussion.

**Conclusion:**
Ultimately, I'm here to appreciate and evaluate the efforts you put into presenting your arguments and participating in the debate or Congress session. Remember to communicate effectively, respect your opponents, and make a compelling case. Best of luck to all of you, and let's have a great round!