I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

I am a practicing attorney in NC. I am not a fan of spreading so please speak slower and clearly. I will give you a cue if I believe you are going too fast.

Experienced LD/Speech Judge

Traditional but open to some K's or plans/CPs

Don't run theory as I will likely vote for the competitor with a more concrete argument

Short Version:

I debated in high school (very traditional policy) and college (parli, just one year). I teach English. While I coach LD, l prefer a good traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy. I look for solid clash of values throughout, and would prefer that you avoid jargon as much as possible. A thoughtful and well-supported value structure is more important to me than individual cards, and everything you discuss should be related to your framework.

Full Version:

Judging Style:

I really like to see good clash. I find it easiest to vote for you if you have a thoughtful, solid framework which is well supported by all of your contentions and evidence. Impacts are extremely important to me. While I think the best debate is traditional in style, I'm open to seeing creative approaches, but only to a limited extent. I have a B.A. in Philosophy, so I'm very comfortable with any philosophical arguments you might want to run. Feel free to be complex, but I will be able to tell if you misrepresent or misunderstand the philosophy.

Speaks:

I generally stick to a range of 26-29, with 26 being average or slightly below, 27 being decent, 28 being good, and 29 being excellent. I typically reserve 30 for persuasive, perfect speech. If you are being truly unnecessarily rude, or use racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. language, then I will rank you lower than this range.

Speed:

For me, this is related to speaker points. I'm fine with speaking quickly, but believe that spreading has no place in debate and is, at its core, abusive. If you spread, I will drop you.

Flashing:

I'm fine if you want to flash your case, cards, whatever to your opponent, so long as there is mutual agreement. I'm not interested in reading your case, though. I will only evaluate you on what is spoken during the round. This is not an essay contest. The only material I will ask to see during or after the round might be specific cards, if questions about them become relevant to the debate.

Regarding time, just don't waste it. I don't typically count the time taken to flash toward prep, unless you're clearly taking advantage.

Ks

I don't generally love these, but I'm happy to entertain a really well constructed K. You'll have an uphill battle, you really need warrant, and I won't typically default away from the resolution, but you could still convince me that you deserve my vote with a good K.

DAs

I'm OK with these, but they need to be impacted. I tend to treat these as just another argument.

Theory:

I have a pretty low tolerance for these, but will accept a thoughtful theory shell, especially if there is a potentially clear instance of abuse. You need warrant, and should carefully explain interps.

Flex Prep/CX:

I will not allow the use of flex prep.

General Comments:

I've probably left out my thoughts on some aspects of debate, so please ask questions if you have them. I'll do my best to answer. What I'm really hoping to see is a sportsmanlike debate that is thoughtful. While there are some strategies that I believe are inherently abusive, I will at least hear you out if you make an earnest effort to have a good academic debate.

Parent judge, most experienced with Congress.

I appreciate credibly sourced research, well-constructed arguments, a clear speaking style, and most importantly, respect for your fellow debaters.

I value clear communication, speed at a moderate & measured pace & professionalism at all times. Road maps not necessary.

I am a parent judge, but am experienced in judging LD and PF. I’ve also judged speech events. I have a few criteria to highlight which are focused on debate vs. speech events.

· Speak at a pace where you can be understood. If I can’t understand you, I can’t flow the debate whether it is LD or PF. I don’t understand the logic behind Spreading as a reasonable approach to a debate, unless your life goal is to be an auctioneer, but they can generally be understood. If you are going to fast I will drop my pen and stopping taking notes. This will impact speaker points and may impact the outcome of the debate because if I can’t flow one side of the debate my only option is to award the win to the person or team that can be understood.

· Spirited argumentation is a fundamental part of a debate and I’m comfortable with passionate clashes, as long as they are executed in a civil manner. Please do not personally attack your competitor(s) as that will result in loosing points for that round. I’m ok with some interruptions during Cross but will stop either or both teams if excessive.

· Please don’t play the “my card is better than your card and thus judge you must vote Aff or Neg”. I understand using counter evidence to weaken your opponent’s case and strengthen yours, but simply saying Card X trumps Card Y with no further explanation as to why that is the case will not enhance your argument’s credibility.

· Try to research your sources and find ones with counter ideology that also support your arguments. For instance, if you use the Cato Institute as a reference understand that is a Libertarian focused organization and you should look to something like the Brookings Institute, a more Democratic leaning organization, as a source to see if you can find something that would agree with the position of the Cato Institute.

· Have a framework for your arguments regardless if you debate LD or PF. You need the structure to be able to position your arguments in a way that can allow me as a judge to fairly flow the debate and determine if your opponents did or did not address your criterion and contentions. Cards should be carefully selected to support your positions and be readily available for your competitors to review when called.

· If you ask for a card, I will not count the time taken to find the card and present as prep time but will start prep time once the card has been given to you to review.

· If you are using an electronic device for opening speeches or to hold your evidence, please make sure you have properly charged it between rounds so you can provide evidence if asked by your competitors.

I appreciate that you are taking your time on weekend to compete and will do my absolute best to fairly judge the debates (or speech events if necessary), provide Reasons for Decisions that are concise but helpful in understanding why you won or lost, and will provide feedback to each person/team as well. I take my role as a judge seriously, but also recognize that these events are also supposed to be fun. So please come into the rounds with a positive attitude about the debate, treat your opponents as you would want them to treat you, and be respectful of me as a judge. I too am investing my Saturdays in you and your “sport”.

Experience

Current Director for DFW S&D. I did LD/Policy/PF for HS (primarily Policy and LD) and so have experience with either format. I also competed for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit with some policy here and there as well in college. Short of it is that I have experience with most argument styles and formats so you should be fine with whatever you want to run. I generally judge LD if I judge at all, so I've written this paradigm for that format. If there are any questions due to me not judging you in LD, feel free to email/ask about those prior to the round.

In addition, prior to anything about debate argument preferences, if at any time a competitor feels uncomfortable/unsafe, you are free to contact me via email or other means if you would prefer it to not be voiced in round.

My email for chains is ianmmikkelsen@gmail.com , please include me.

Important Notes

I'm using this section to note a few things that are probably important in terms of general style, more than specifics of arguments.

Speed - I'm generally fine with speed so long as it works for everyone in the round. I should note that between debate for however long and my time in various graduate programs, I now suffer from fairly consistent hand and wrist pain that sometimes flares up to the point that I can't type all of the arguments given at a top speed. To accommodate this, I will generally listen along while reading the speech document, and copy it over to my flow as it happens. If you are adding analysis or giving the rebuttal, I would recommend slowing down to a quick, but not spread, speed if you would like me to make sure to get all of the analysis you give. I have yet to be in a round where analytics are both understandable and not capable of being typed, but if for some reason that occurs, I will say clear/slow.

This all being said, as a personal preference, I do enjoy a single comprehensive strategy that is carried throughout the round more than a spread of options that then get whittled down through conditionality/kicking theory. Not to say that I'll be knocking speaks or actually upset/annoyed by the latter, just a personal preference.

Speech documents - Related to speed, but somewhat different, I have noticed that there are times where individuals will send a speech document that contains most of their analytics, but fails to include a few independent voters. If you maintain a top spreading pace, and simply blaze through a sudden independent voter analytic that was not included in record time, I'm unlikely to grant it to you. If you slow down for its delivery and note that it is not in the document, I will flow it and include it at that time. I generally dislike being forced into these types of judgement calls, but the convergence of tech issues, difficult in having consistent audio quality, as well as just accessibility concerns, means I'm not sure how to adjudicate a round where by the time a concession of these arguments happens it's too late to identify whether it was just missed or something else impacting the round.

Theory/T

I'm generally fine with whatever theory position so long as it is relatively well developed. I generally view it as whether it is a theoretically good as a precedent and not as an instance of this specific round (i.e., you can win potential abuse arguments), but only if the argument is developed to claim that there is a fundamental shift in strategy due to just the presence of arguments (didn't run x really good argument because y theoretically objectionable choice removes it as a viable option). That being said, that is typically only on more stock theory. The more specific the theory is to a condition that only happens under either the specific resolution or within a specific round the more I need the theory to focus on in-round issues.

Kritiks

I'm good with most critical arguments and theorists. I ran too much of Agamben, Cap, Lacan, and other language k's. Identity based frameworks are more what I've gotten into with my actual studies and research post-undergraduate, so I'm familiar with the authors (as well as having had researched them for debate), but generally only ran that literature when the topic for the round made it more related to the political as opposed to the ontological claims of the literature. I will listen to the ontological criticisms that come from it, but generally found that my attempts to contribute to that aspect was less helpful than preferred due to a lack of experience and understanding personally.

Tricks

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what a "trick" is in debate. From what I can tell, it is either a fairly specific and complex bit of theory/logic that is predicated entirely in the game of debate (willing to listen to that) or the term that individuals use for one liners that come without the explanation of what precisely they mean or how to evaluate it. Due to the time differentials of speeches, spikes in the AC which are meant for expansion in the 1AR make sense to me, but if the argument is underdeveloped upfront my general reaction is to either 1) disregard expansion if it isn't explained until the final speeches and doesn't seem immediately obvious from what was said or 2) to give the expansion but also allow an expansion of arguments against it. I've voted based on not understanding or following arguments before and am generally willing to do so, but would vastly prefer being able to have the full argument as that generally makes everyone happier.

Philosophy

I've read most of the "stock" philosophers from traditional LD, gotten deep into Foucault, Hegel, Marx, and other European authors, and have used my time after debate to get into identity frameworks that I didn't focus on as much as I should've. I've noticed that some philosophy aff/neg will sometimes run entire cases that take works from well before the concepts of the resolution were even discussed and attempt to apply them to the recent developments. My general sentiment on this is that it can be done, but that it is probably preferable to spend the time of research on finding what philosophical arguments are based in the literature, and then find the foundational texts afterwards. It is difficult for me to accept an application of books written in the early 20th century (and sometimes prior) to the development of recent technologies, especially when the literature applying those theories to these developments is generally fairly rich itself, over someone who has more topic specific discussions of the literature. But, I can be persuaded otherwise on this.

I am the typical "lay judge". However, I can evaluate strength of argumentation and command of evidence in deciding a round.

Spreading: Don't do it. Please be understandable.

Roadmaps: Extremely helpful for me in understanding how your speech will go. Just a simple explanation of the order will suffice.

The Round: I will always evaluate substantive argumentation first. However, there is only so much of debate I can understand, so if I truly am stuck on which side won based on arguments, I will vote on speaking style.

Speaker Points:

Speaker Points will be awarded based on how well your arguments are presented and argued against, as well as your speaking rhetoric. Giving a roadmap will probably reflect handsomely upon your speaker points. Toxic behavior is very bad.

Update for Peninsula 2021: I am sick and hence will have my camera off. I would especially appreciate it if you kept your own time and made me speak as less as possible. I would also appreciate if you send your case to rsarwal@gmail.com with your team code on the subject line so I can follow better. Apologies for the inconvenience, have fun debating!

Hey y'all. (If you see a lot of debate jargon here, blame it on my son).

I am a parent judge but that doesn't mean I'm stupid. So disclaimer if you're gonna try and go full "lay" or think I'm going to let an argument past me, you're wrong. However, don't start running K's, Theory Shells or any other of that progressive stuff because if you are reading this you very well know this is a traditional local tournament.

Preferences-

SPEAKING- Be clear, concise. Don't be mean. That's the main gist. If you can't speak in the best way or you have a speaking impairment, don't worry! All I should see is you trying.

-Speaker Points

30- You spoke really well. You demonstrated a well-versed understanding of the topics. You won all the arguments, and it seems as if the world relies on this ballot. You made me smile and gave me new insight.

29- You were excellent. Only very minor flaws, maybe in just not extending an impact or not explaining values that well. Other than that, you were pretty solid.

28- I see a lot of potential. You may lack in certain areas but you put up a, if not good, then reasonable fight.

27- You had a reasonable case. You couldn't defend your case, perhaps only one or two arguments. No solid offense but tried.

26- You need to go over the resolution again, understand it well. Learn to give voter issue, impacts, explain values.

**BELOW a 26**- If you were mean, super mean, violated rules like had a evidence violation or were 'super duper really you should learn how to behave' mean.

VALUES- I really really think values are really important. It gives me a weighing mechanism to judge the round and makes things easier. I expect you to tie back your arguments to your value structures. I generally prefer if you agree on a value premise but if you oppose your opponent's value structure, be clear. Don't use complicated theories of ethics and expect me to nod my head. Keep it clear, simple and explain your stuff.

WELL ORGANIZED ARGUMENTS- I don't want you to be going everywhere making a round hell for me. Be organized, be clear. Signpost. Refer to your card names, tell me where your argument is (ie Contention 1, Sub Point C). I also like Off Time Road Maps.These skills not only help me in round but also will help you as a debater. Also, do NOT drop arguments. I may be a parent but I judge off of arguments.

REBUTTALS- I honestly think rebuttals are very, rather the most important. If you come up with one on spot, that you warrant really well, without any evidence, I will really like that. That being said, if you use evidence or a card, then I still won't mind. Just warrant it out and explain it to me. Just reading evidence is useless.

What I don't like

- You either being super tech or super lay. Talk like I'm a lay judge, argue like a tech one. But not too tech, it will only go against you.

-Being mean. You know the reasons. I will deliberately judge screw you if you are mean or sarcastic. We all know how oof being judge screwed is.

-Super advanced stuff. Maybe you even explain it, I will still not understand it. But at the end of the day, I hardly know what a K or theory or plan is. (This is my son assuring me that I don't know this stuff).

-Giving impacts without reasons. I don't want to hear "Climate Change is bad." Tell me how it is bad and connect your value premise's to it.

In the end, I appreciate you, your time and your skills as a debater. I may sound super picky in this paradigm but my son says it helps debaters. All this is for you to learn.

Good luck debating!