I'm a traditional judge with over 30 years of coaching all events. I am currently teaching a new Debate course at Center Academy for Success.

Updated for NSDA Nationals:

Hi! I am happy to judge you. My son does PF, so I know the topic and how to flow. I prioritize clear speaking and argumentation. Please be nice to one another in questioning. I appreciate clear voters at the end of the debate.

Thanks, and happy debating!

I am a trained newcomer to this event. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please include me on the email chain; shane.billig@gmail.com

I'm a fairly adaptable judge; 10+ years of debate experience as a competitor/coach. I default to policymaker framework and I am very familiar with CP/DA theory and am generally okay with any generic arguments, but I'd prefer to have the links analyzed to be as specific as possible. In general analysis and comparison of cards and warrants is the best way to convince me that your evidence is superior, and I find that many 2AC/2NC rely too much on reading more blocks rather than providing unique in round analysis.

I have and will vote on kritiks, and there are many times I think the K is the smartest choice in the round, however the more specific your kritiks get, the less familiar I am with the authors and literature. There are some key exceptions and generally any form of IR kritik or kritik of the general "structure" of society I will understand (Fem IR/Cap/Militarism for example). You must explain the kritik, the role of the ballot, and specifically explain the link and how the alternative functions. Explain the kritik in your own words, don't just read a block at me.

On topicality I default to reasonability, but this doesn't mean that I won't vote on topicality, especially if you give me reasons why I should prefer competing interpretations. In slow/quick rounds I am generally able to get citations on my flow, but in fast rounds you won't be able to extend just by author/year. Talk about the card, its tag, and its role in the round (this is just good extension advice in general). With all arguments if I don't understand your point, it doesn't make it onto my flow because you weren't clear, it got flowed onto the wrong sheet, etc then you didn't say it and I won't evaluate it. This happens most often on theory/T/K where I don't understand the violation or alternative or some other aspect of the argument--and the easiest solution to this problem is again to slow down for a second and use your own words to explain the argument.

If the round is going to have more than 5+ minutes of T/Theory I think everyone is better off if you go at 90% of your speed on those arguments. I am not as fast as you think I am, and while it's rare that I'm sped out of rounds, it does happen, and when it does 90% of the time it's me missing theory analysis because you're blazing through a pre-written block like its a politics card. I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have, and I do my best to adapt my judging style to the round I am in. One thing that I feel many teams do is over-adapt, and it often hurts them. Debate the way you want to debate, and I will evaluate it however you tell me to. I'd much rather judge really good debates over K literature I'm not familiar with prior to the round than bad or bland CP/DA debate.

Judge adaptation is overrated and leads to worse debates. I’ll do my best to make the most robust decision I can based on the debate you would like to have. I can and will vote for any argument presented - I'm studying Communication, Politics, Philosophy, Economics, National Preparedness and Homeland Security so there's a decent chance I have some academic background in whatever it is you are debating about. In high school, I went for pomo Ks, framework and heg good. In college I went for the cap k, framework, and the Econ DA. My favorite AFFs I wrote were small policy AFFs with disproportionately large impacts; my second favorite had plans and a robust defense of not defending them.

I used to be really devoted to picking a side on framework but have largely given up trying. Instead, I now want to watch teams defend what they said. This is the bare minimum, not a ceiling. I'm incredibly tired of watching teams squirrel out of impact turns they link to and their opponents not calling them out. As long as a debate has meaningful clash, line-by-line, and good attitudes everyone gets a 28.8 minimum.

The primary item I look for is quality. Quality of the overall speech, how sound the arguments, and how effectively time is used. I am not a fan of speed reading as I feel the impacts are not properly emphasized. The next component I look for is the impact itself. Sources must be credible and unbiased, but then the impacts must be properly emphasized and analyzed.

I am a parent judge and have judged before. I prefer that you talk slowly, show respect for each other and have fun. I appreciate organized structure throughout and analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

I am a parent judge judging my 3rd NSDA Nationals. I try and read all of the guidelines for an event and judge accordingly. I am college educated and work in education, but I do find that sometimes speakers at this level speak in a matter that is difficult for the average person to understand. I truly appreciate speaking intelligently using layman's terminology and not making it difficult for those who are not as intelligent as the students competing. Using debate terminology can make in more difficult to understand as I did not compete in speech or debate. I have judged many different debate and speech events including OO, Prose, IX, DX, and Congress at NSDA Nationals. I apologize if i do not smile a lot during rounds. I find I look very serious when listening intently. I hope everyone enjoys the experience and feels like they did their best.

Email: wcornett@trinityacademy.org

Lincoln-Douglas

I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.

Policy

Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.

Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.

DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.

It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.

T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).

K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.

Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.

Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.

Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.

Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.

I am a parent judge and have judged a few rounds of PF in Houston locals as well as speech events. Please speak at a conversational speed, and make your arguments understandable and persuasive.

School affiliation: St. John's (parent)

Hired: No

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): N/A

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against (required): N/A

Currently enrolled in college? No

College Speech and Debate Experience N/A

Years Judging/Coaching 1-2

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 1-2

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year 3

Check all that apply

_____I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

__/___I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year (required)

Check all that apply

____ Congress

__/__ PF

____ LD

____ Policy

__/__ Extemp/OO/Info

__/__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before? No

What does chairing a round involve? Calling speakers up to speak, announcing the winner in a panel

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? The most conversational and quick-thinking style of debate, focusing on topics with worldwide relevance.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? I'll write down the arguments throughout the round on a notepad.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. No, but it depends on how the third speaker and reply speaker compare the two arguments with each other. One side or the other needs to give a good reason to prefer their principle or their practical arguments.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? I look to the progression and cohesion between teammates, along with how well specific arguments are extended, rehashed, and collapsed down the bench.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? Style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? I look at the logical basis of what the argument rests on, and the way it was presented and weighed in the round (ie. cohesively, understandably).

How do you resolve model quibbles? Just like in a definition debate, I'll go more or less past the model debate (preferring those that are intuitive/understandable) and evaluate the remaining substantive arguments.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? It really depends on how the model/countermodel is presented in the debate; whichever is more fleshed out, understandable, and weighed. Honestly, the substantives matter much more.

I am a parent judge who has judged LD before at local tournaments. I will try my best to evaluate circuit-style arguments, just make sure you explain everything clearly and give me reasons to vote for you. No spreading or debate jargon please.

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

My email for the chain: kaevans97@gmail.com

I graduated from Missouri State University in May 2020 where I competed in NDT/CEDA as well as NFA-LD style debate all four years. I'm attending law school this year, so I have little to no specific topic knowledge, but a good torts or contracts joke will certainly get you a bump in speaker points.

TL;DR: It is your job as the debater to tell me how to evaluate particular arguments in the round. If you fail to do that, I will be forced to impose my own standards of judgement and I would much rather that I didn't have to do that.

In all honesty, I am more truth over tech, but if there is a drop I won't completely disregard the argument (even if I find it silly). That generally means that if you are reading a ridiculous argument that you created to confuse your opponents, you are already in an uphill battle with me. No, aliens will probably not kill us all. And no, the world is probably not just a simulation (if it is, then I picked the wrong one). Use that information as you will.

At the end of the day, debate is an activity that you compete in for a finite number of years. This competition is not the impetus of your life's achievements; please do not treat it that way. Be kind to everyone in the round and enjoy the experience.

CPs:

I personally think conditional advocacies have gotten a little ridiculous, but will entertain them if you give me a reason to. I find it unlikely that I will vote on theoretical objections as the sole reason for decision, but I can be compelled to use it as a reason to disregard a CP/Alt in the 2nr (given that the neg has not already kicked it). If your CP was pulled out of nowhere before the speech started, you will have to do a lot of work to convince me it is real (see above).

If you are aff, you will need a developed solvency deficit at the end of the debate unless you are going for offense on the net benefit. I know that seems obvious, but sometimes 2As forget.

DAs:

I don't really have any wild opinions here so I will be brief. The link is the hardest part of the DA to win and thus the most vulnerable to affirmative arguments. You should focus most of your energy there. If you don't have clear impact calc in the 2nr/2ar I will have a much harder time deciding what to do with the DA in comparison to aff impacts and that puts you in an awkward position at the end of the round.

Ks:

I have a love-hate relationship with critical arguments in debate. That is based mostly on how debate forces those arguments to morph from their original intent. That being said, the aff needs to win either a perm or an outweighs argument that is developed and does more than just repeat the same tag line repeatedly. The best critical debates on the neg engage key portions of the aff to prove a link to the aff either performatively in round or housed in the core premises on their literature. I am unpersuaded by vague links to USFG action or other actions that are so inherent to the status quo that I cannot differentiate between the two. I also personally think alts are generally underdeveloped and I have a hard time determining what to do when the neg kicks the alt and all that remains is a vague link.

Whatever my opinions, this is your activity. I want you to do it the way that is the most enjoyable for you. A well-run K is better than a half-assed policy round any day.

Topicality:

TBH, as a competitor I sucked at topicality debates. That doesn't mean I don't understand how they function or that I am unwilling to vote on T, but you will likely have to do a little bit more work to make sure I understand what your arguments mean for the decision. I apologize if that is annoying.

(For policy affs that are attempting to meet the resolution): I do not care if there is no explicit in round abuse. That is useful, but not required of a topicality argument. Honestly, if the aff is pretty topical (especially if it is arguably the core aff on the topic) I will have a hard time being persuaded by topicality. I guess prove me wrong.

(For anti-topical affs): Your TVA mustn't be perfect, but it must include core aspect of the aff's literature. Meaning you need to engage with the aff in some way in order to win the TVA. If the aff team puts a random DA on T, there has to be impact calculus for it at the end of the round, otherwise I will treat it as perhaps an example of your larger argument, but not an independent reason to vote aff.

Critical affs:

I am going to be honest. I am not your best judge. I am not inherently opposed to the concept of K affs, but I feel many are disingenuous and ask me to make decisions based off of claims I can neither verify or claim to know given my subject position. With that being said, if I am your judge in those rounds I would prefer that your aff intertwine in some substantive way with the topic. If your aff's only claim to the topic is that you used the word "climate change" in one card in one speech of the round, that is not an interaction with the topic. Now, if you have a whole narrative about what "climate change" means in relation to your subject matter, then I will be more persuaded by your answers to T. With that being said, I am not going to auto vote against a K aff.

I was a philosophy major, but I am not an expert in your topic area so you cannot assume I know the jargon specific to your literature. Obviously, at the end of the day, debate is a game and if you choose to play it without a plan then that is a choice you get to make and I will respect that. Have fun, be kind, and I will do my best to adjudicate the round in a (semi) competent manner.

Final comments:

If you feel I have made the wrong decision, I am sorry. My decisions are not intended to be disrespectful and I have no intention to harm or criticize a debater personally based off anything that occurs in round. I get that debate is hard and we all make mistakes. I hope that you extend that same understanding and respect to me. If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them before/after the round or in an email before/after the tournament.

(Go Bears)

Blippy arguments make the debate nearly impossible to judge:

Cards should have warrants and you should be able to access the warrant and reasoning behind the card a quote without context is not an argument. You should be using warrants not just reading a quote. If you are extending evidence you should be reading the warrant, not just a blip.

THE DEBATER WHO HAS BETTER ARGUMENTATION WILL WIN OVER THE DEBATER WHO JUST READS A CARD THAT SAYS WELL ACTUALLY WSJ SAYS XYZ.

there should in general, be more engagement on the framing aspect of the debate. Tell me:

How you link into framing
Why that is good
Why your opponent doesn't
why that is bad

pick one main argument that you are winning and link to framing.

pick what offense the other team has and outweigh it

he/him

I have been a coach at Evanston for 5 years, and have been judging for them for 7+

please be clear if spreading, very important that you pause and sign post during argumentation. I will defer to what I hear in speeches and use the speech doc sparingly. It is importance to change cadence when spreading in order to emphasize warrants and impacts in order to differentiate. I don’t want to have to read the cards to figure out what you are saying in your speeches, you should be clear enough so I can flow

Tricks are pretty annoying and don't really help people learn how to debate, It is on a case to case basis on how I will weigh tricks (long story short, id recommend NOT reading them in front of me)

The most important thing in the round is that your arguments are accessible, and inclusive to everyone. That being said, be inclusive to your opponent inside the round. If your opponent doesn't understand speed, slow down. If an argument is not clear and is hard to understand, explain it. If you don't do these things, I will have a hard time voting for these arguments. That being said, I am pretty much open to any argument (regardless of event) as long as it is warranted, and impacted (as long as it is not exclusionary or violent). This includes critical arguments in public forum. Don't lie about evidence. This is a very good way to automatically lose the round with me, and more often than not almost any other judge, or judge panel.

Decision-Making:

Framing:

If you tell me to look at a certain framework and it is fair and reasonable, then I will do so. If I don't think it is fair I probably wont evaluate under it, but I will tell you why I think it's unfair, and how to make it fair. For LD, it is more about warranted framing. I don’t like/understand phil framing when it’s spread, and I literally have no idea how to evaluate it when it’s read at 200+ wpm

K's are cool.

Decorum: You should do what makes you comfortable in round, if you want to sit down for cx cool, stand up, cool. Sit down for speech, yeee, stand on your head. Let people know if there is anything you need to make the round more accessible or more comfortable for you.

Speaker points: Being kind in round is the best way to get 30's with me. Also, if I learn something new or interesting, you will probably get good speaks

winners get probably 28-30, then the losing team .5 less

30: you were cool in round

I don't always remember to time, so please be honest and hold yourselves accountable.

Congressional Debate:

I should start off by saying that I am a judge who is a stickler about citing sources and having good scholarly facts. Learning how to properly research is important to debate and so is citing.

I am a judge that expects bills that are thoroughly researched and well written by those that have authorship and those that have sponsorship I believe that everyone should dress and act appropriately and treat each other with respect. There is no reason to shout or talk over one another and I expect the PO to maintain the order and the rules. I am a judge who doesn’t start the PO off at 1 in scoring because I need the PO to show me they are active in the room and not just staring at a clock or their phone. If I see a PO on their phone for any other reason then I will lower them farther. I expect lots of facts and I want to know exactly where those facts are from and I don’t believe Wikipedia is a scholarly article. I like to hear refutations and know that debaters are paying attention to each other. I don’t want to see a lot of rehash, I want to see movement of the bills if there is nothing new. As a judge, I don’t want to listen to five pros cause everyone wants to give their prepared speech. Be spontaneous and attentive to what is going on in the room. I like a spontaneous speech that is to something another student spoke on than a well prepared long drawn out speech that I knew was coming any day of the week. Have fun and be prepared to speak.

My Education:

Bachelors of Arts in Criminal Justice from Mount Mercy University

Associates of Arts in Paralegal Studies from Kirkwood Community College

PF: I still think Public Forum should hold to the intended purpose when it was first introduced. Persuasion is key. Speaking fast with lots of arguments and debate jargon is not persuasive and will probably cost you the round. Sound reasoning and logic should be a significant part of the round. Evidence should be used as support but not the only the thing to vote on. Referring to the “Smith 16 card" will not tell me anything. Refer to the argument or contention and the evidence used there.

Spreading = the MEGA L

Going slow also = the L, but less of the L than Spreading.

Please speak in at a nice pace that is understandable and will provide me the best opportunity to understand your thoughts and ideas.

Thanks for reading this and I look forward to your round.

Policy Debate:

I am an old-school policy systems judge. I vote for what I am persuaded is the superior policy system whether that is the affirmative plan, the status quo, a counterplan, etc. Topicality is always a voting issue, including on whether the counterplan is topical. Partly because topicality matters so much to me, I have never voted in favor of a team that promotes K. I'm not saying I never will--just that I haven't yet.

I seldom give much weight to generic disads--have a link. Same with "end of the world" advantage impacts--have a link.

I realize why information gets flashed between teams. Please realize that I do not see what is flashed at this level of competition. I judge on what I hear. More to the point, I judge on what I hear and understand. This is an oral exercise, in my opinion, and if it is impossible for me to understand, the fact that others in or out of the room might understand what was said is absolutely irrelevant--making me understand is your job. I might ask you for evidence that you read that is challenged in some way by the opposition. I won't ask you for evidence that you do not read in the round.

I believe that there are limits on fiat. I believe that attitudinal inherency invites attitudinal solvency arguments.

I take a better-than-average flow and judge off of it. I still want to be persuaded, though. Not every line on a flow is equal nor should it be.

Public Forum:

I tend to judge it like Policy in terms of overall judging philosophy. But where the time limits of policy make line-by-line refutation preferable, PF puts a premium on summaries and lumping arguments together. I dislike crossfire. I say this so that you know I want debaters to be courteous and professional during that time. Rudeness and dominating behavior in any cross-ex period is not a good idea with me as a judge.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

This format is not called "Policy Without a Plan." At its best, it is not a debate about competing policies, but rather a debate about how a country/people/planet should evaluate competing policies. What are our standards? What means the most?

As much as these standards and values are important areas of debate in this format, I must admit to getting bored with much time being devoted to the details of the theories of long-dead philosophers. These ideas aren't good because they are old; if you're right, they are old because they are good.

Reagan-style Debates:

This is my favorite format because it places a premium on communication and persuasion. I think civility and courtesy is more important in this event as well. I look at WHAT is said and HOW it is said to decide most rounds. But when those considerations leave me undecided, I will factor in what I perceive to be the character of the person speaking as reflected by their demeanor in asking and answering questions and other conduct during the debate.

As to how I evaluate "what is said": please read the policy debate paradigm above. If you are advocating a certain policy, albeit without a plan, I will vote for it to the extent you persuade me that it is the superior policy. On the negative, convincing me that what the affirmative is promoting is unnecessary or harmful is the way to proceed. Think old school and you cannot go wrong with me in this format.

Common to all formats:

I am not a tabula rasa judge. Although I am not predisposed to a result, I do not approach any issue as if all knowledge or common sense was sucked from my brain immediately upon being handed a ballot.

I am a parent judge and this is my seventh year judging LD. I am most comfortable judging traditional rounds and mostly judge local tournaments. Don't spread in front of me, I probably won't be able to keep up. If I don't have it on my flow, I won't judge it. I don't evaluate new in the 2. I am not familiar with critical literature and most philosophy. If you plan on reading this in front of me, explain it really well. Signpost, impact and weigh. Give me the ballot story/voters/crystallization in the last rebuttal.

Please send your case to my email at mahender.ginuga@gmail.com

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

I am a head coach for Speech & Debate.

I prefer traditional-style Lincoln-Douglas Debate, with a focus on Value Clash.

Evidence should be read throughout the debate.

I keep a good FLOW during the round.

I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate.

I encourage you to give VOTERS. Tell me why you have won the round.

I really do not tolerate disrespect in the round. Being rude will lose you the ballot.

I am a citizen judge and a parent of a competitor. This is my 6th year as a judge for LD and PFD. I have judged local tournaments in South Carolina and a few National Circuit Tournaments.

The quality of your arguments is more important than the quantity of your arguments. I will reflect after the debate on who won the debate. Memorable examples relevant to your argument and insightful logic to explain the reasons behind your position can be decisive at this moment of reflection.

Explanation of your evidence and its relevance to your case is more important than the relative credibility of your sources versus the sources of your opponent’s evidence. I will ask myself if I “buy” your argument based on your explanation of the evidence and its relevance.

Enunciation is important so that I can understand your points. Brisk speaking is fine, but don’t sacrifice my ability to understand you, especially in a virtual environment.

Debate the actual resolution. Tell me why it matters and what the stakes are.

Overall, don’t make me work too hard. If you and your opponent were attorneys, which one of you would I hire to defend me in court?

I am a lay parent judge. If you spread or speak quickly and I cannot follow your arguments, I won't be able to flow or vote off of it so please articulate your words and don't speak super-fast. If you run theory arguments I will flow to the best of my ability, but please have a clearly structured shell and don't run frivolous theory. Clear links and impacts are important; explain to me why your arguments matter.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

Competed both in PF and Congress national circuit + TOC. Junior in college studying Human Rights and Sociology specializing in Immigration and Race and Ethnicity Studies.

Do

do a voter summary and FF *please*

less evidence that is better explained is better than 6 pieces of evidence that you don't explain and run through too quickly for me to understand. Especially during virtual debate, I simply cannot weigh what I can't understand.

Extend through Summary

If you're speaking second come back to your case in Rebuttal

Be clear and Organized

Have narrative / advocacy

WEIGH

Don't

Exploit arguments about inequities (Ie. racism, homophobia, xenophobia etc.) if you're only doing it to win. Handle these arguments with care and really try to understand from the perspective of the people impacted by these disparities. Do your research, use inclusive terminology, and use debate as a form of social justice instead of using social justice just to win a debate.

Fudge evidence

Speak faster than your words come out

Be Rude / Bigoted / Make the other team feel small

Be aggressive and loud especially during cross

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

I am a 'lay' parent judge. I have been judging Lincoln Douglas Debate for the past 4 years. I do flow, but it is up to you to express your thoughts and ideas clearly and to tell me why they matter.

I like competitors to speak at an understandable pace. I can't flow what I can't understand or hear.

Your logical arguments should be highlighted by your evidence. Freestanding evidence without a logical argument requires me to make the link and that is not what I consider to be my job.

At this point I believe you both should be able to manage your time. Be responsible and don't abuse the time you know you are entitled to.

What competitors look like, what their screen background is, how they are dressed, their gender etc is not factored into my decision. I do not give preference. I vote for the competitor who puts forth the best arguments with good evidence.

I am a parent judge who has judged at previous debate tournaments, but I have no debate experience myself.

Be courteous to your opponents at all times.

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

T

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

Traditional style LD. Not big on flowing.

Assistant coach for 5 years.

Taken from Tyler Gamble's paradigm, but holds mostly true for me:
I will vote on anything that is justified as a ballot winning position.
My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech.
I subconsciously presume towards unique arguments/funny like-able people. This doesn't mean you will win, but if the round becomes unadjudicatable more often that not I'll decide your way.
I don't believe in speaker points.
If you are directly oppressive, I reserve the right to not vote for you.
Please keep me entertained...
Please make jokes. I find terrible dad humor jokes that fall flat to be the funniest.

Taken from Ellen Ivens-Duran's paradigm:
Here are the things that matter:
I did not debate as a student.
I have judged and coached PF and LD for (5) years.
I don’t lean towards any style of debate, just convince me why I should vote for you and you can win.
...

Affiliations: Madison West, Verona Area HS.

PF Paradigm:

12/3/2020 update: My bar for dropping a team for cheating is fairly low. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence and you want to stake the round on it, a useful phrase to know is: "I am making a formal evidence challenge under NSDA rule 7.3.C., for distortion of evidence. We are stopping the round and staking the round's outcome on the result of this formal evidence violation."

No off-time roadmaps. Period. Signpost instead. I will start the clock when you start roadmapping.

Online debate: Before the round starts, there should be a Google Doc (preferred instead of email) with all debaters and judges on it. You should be prepared to add any evidence you read to that Doc in a carded format -- I am receptive to drop-the-argument theory if evidence isn't accessible to your opponents in round.

I time prep meticulously because prep theft is rampant in PF. If a card is requested, teams have 60 seconds to find the card and add it to the file sharing mechanism of the round -- anything beyond that comes out of the prep time of the team that can't find their own evidence. If evidence can't be found, there needs to be an argument made in a speech to drop it (eg. "Drop their argument because they could not share the supporting evidence: we were not given a fair chance to review and dispute its claims."). Discuss and review evidence during cross-x time whenever possible.

If both teams agree to it before the round, and the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow it, I am fine with waiving Grand Cross and granting both teams an additional minute of prep time.

Clash as soon as you are given the opportunity.

• Plans and fiat are educational.

• If it's not in the final focus, it's not going to win you the round.

• I appreciate effective crossfire, and will listen to it, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down by looking at me and saying "write that down".

• I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments.

• Outside of the fact that the 2nd overall speech is expected to just read case (though I'm open to teams rejecting this norm), I expect coverage of both sides of the flow starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech). The 1st rebuttal (3rd overall speech) doesn't need to extend case -- they just need to refute the opposing case.

• Exception to the above: Framework. If you're speaking second, don't wait until 15 minutes into the round to tell me your framework. You're obligated to make framework arguments in case.

• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical PF strategy, like a "kritik".

• I don't give weight to any argument labeled as an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round.

If you start your speech by saying "3-2-1", I will say "Blastoff"! "3-2-1" is not necessary!

POLICY (AND SOMETIMES PARLIAMENTARY) DEBATE PARADIGM

NSDA 2021: I have judged ZERO rounds on this topic. The last policy judging I did was at NCFL 2019. I will not know the jargon or meta of this topic.

Judging circuit policy debate is generally an unpleasant experience for me, mainly because of speed. However, lay-oriented CX debate is easily my favorite event.

General Overview:

• Default to Policymaker paradigm. The one major difference is that you should always assume that I am very dumb. Call it the 'stupid President' paradigm.
• You're welcome to run non-traditional positions (K's included) IF you keep them to a conversational pace (We're talking Public Forum slow here) and explain why it means I vote for you.
• I have a mock trial background and I LOVE clever cross-x. However, I do expect closed cross-x: one person per team speaking!
• I don't open speech docs except to review specific pieces of evidence that have been indicted.

Presentation Preferences:

• <230 wpm, non-negotiable. Slow down for taglines, plantexts, and important quotes from the evidence.
• I generally prefer debates I'd be able to show to a school administrator and have them be impressed by the activity rather than offended or scared.
• I am inclined to give bonus speaker points if I see an effort to "read me" as a judge, even if you read me wrong. Cite my paradigm if you need to. Learning to figure out your audience is a crucial life skill. On a related note: if you use the secret word 'whiplash' in your speech, I will give you and your partner 0.3 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD and PF, too.

Argumentation Preferences:

• I like smart counterplans that discuss technical details.
• Theory/K's should be impacted more than just saying "voter for fairness and education".

LD DEBATE PARADIGM

General Overview:

Speed-reading (spreading) is embarrassing. I want to sell school administrators on this activity.

My default stance is to vote based on the "truth" of the resolution, but you can propose alternative frameworks.

I have no K background. For Ks/nontraditional arguments, go slowly and explain thoroughly. Explain either how the K proves/disproves the resolution, or offer a compelling alternative ROTB.

Disclosure theory is exclusionary/bad, but disclosed positions get more leeway on certain T standards.

Presentation Preferences:

• Number your refutations.
• Use cross-ex effectively -- the goal is to get concessions that can be used in speeches.
• Present charismatically, make me want to vote for you as a communicator (though I vote off the flow).

Argumentation Preferences:

• Give me voter issues -- the big ballot stories of the round. Go big picture and frame how I'm supposed to look at issues.
• Philosophical "evidence" means very little to me. A professor from Stanford making a specific analytical claim is functionally the same as you making that argument directly.
• I'm bad at flowing authors and try to get the concepts down in as much detail as possible instead. For philosophical arguments, I generally prefer clearly explained logic over hastily-read cards. However, evidence related to quantitative things should be cited because those studies are highly dependent on precision/accuracy and are backed up empirically.

Email: gabemorrison77@gmail.com

Four years NDT and NFA-LD at Missouri State

Four years CX in high school at Greenwood Lab

***About Your Judge***

Hi, you're probably here because I'm judging you. You have my sincerest condolences.

I was a 2N for 3/4 years in college. My usual 1NC consisted of Nietzsche (neither Der Derian nor "suffering good" nonsense) and several on-case turns, with the latter occupying slightly more 2NRs senior year.

I recently rewrote my old argument-by-argument paradigm because I felt that it poorly represented my judging tendencies and encouraged over-adaptation. I like creative, enthusiastic, and generally high quality debating more than I do any particular argument.

***Suggestions***

- Debate the best version of your opponents' argument.

- Case debate is neat. Smart analytics are sometimes better than cards (doesn't apply to CPs and certain Ks, although case analytics are still very helpful in the latter case). Case 2NRs are power moves.

- Clever impact framing > "role of the ballot."

- Make big decisions in the 2NR and 2AR. Focus on the impacts you actually need to win. Poor prioritization is the death of strategy.

- Define terms with multiple/ambiguous meanings. I like precision because I am pathologically obsessive. If left to my own devices, I will strive to interpret keywords in the least consequential manner, but you might not like the results.

- Honesty > "not one step backward, comrades"

***Requests***

- Don't remove FW interpretations & counterinterpretations from your documents. I'm bad enough at adjudicating T/FW as is and I am on the verge of docking speaks for failure to do so.

- Don't be self-righteous or holier-than-thou, but if that's just who you are, please be good at it.

- Don't pivot for an ableism strat because someone said idiot. The link is usually more ableist than its object, the alternative is non-unique, and homonyms exist.

- Be nice to one another.

- Try to have a good time.

***Dogmas***

- Zero risk is possible and usually occurs when arguments are completely irrelevant or missing internal links.

- The ballot does not represent anything more than "who did the better debating." Everything else is impact framing and development of your story's setting.

- "Ontology" does not mean what many debaters seem to think it means.

- Knowledge is a network of metaphors and metonyms that are taken for granted. Facts are what we call metaphors whose referents have been lost over time. Linguistically mutability does not imply the possible change in a concept, but a state of constant change. Most arguments that universalize adjectives are absurd.

- Fiat is not a verb. We do not "fiat" the plan (or alt) into existence. We suspend disbelief like people do with all hypotheticals.

- "Critique" does not have a K in it unless you are German or LARPing as a German.

- Floating PIKs are PIKs in the same way that the States CP PICs out of the federal government.

***Warnings***

- I don't care about Policy v K ideological battle lines. I don't care about PRL and CEDA bogeys. I will probably not be convinced to care. Sometimes an argument is just a cigar.

- If you spend your prep removing lots of analytics from the doc before you send it, I will interpret it as a lack of confidence in your own arguments and regard them with suspicion for the rest of the debate. Moral of the story? Make analytics up on the fly, get good at pretending you make analytics up on the fly, or flash your blocks.

- I was terrible at topicality and framework debate for eight years. I have voted for and against it several times, but I am not good at flowing it and I seem to view theoretical impacts differently than many other debaters. That does not mean "don't read T." I just may be a little less predictable and more likely to make mistakes.

- I find many ableism arguments patronizing. I will do my best to be open-minded and evaluate yours as an individual case, but I will still probably be a little biased. You can alleviate the impact of this bias by (1) not romanticizing disability, and (2) not excluding, authenticity testing, or in general not making hasty assumptions about the physical and mental faculties of your opponents.

***Theory***

- Theory lean: Conditionality? Good. PICs? Good. Perf Con? See "Conditionality?". Consult/Conditions? Evidence-dependent. International/Foreign? Probably bad. 2NC? Usually, but context-dependent. 1NR? I cast fireball.

- High threshold for conditionality bad. I do not understand why contradictions in a vacuum are imbalanced, even if you win that they exist. I have seen many contradictory advocacies and very few actually forced affirmative teams to debate themselves.

- Solvency advocates are unnecessary if the CP text is referencing aff evidence. CPs without solvency advocates are more a reason for affirmatives to get away with fewer cards and questionable permutations than for me to reject the CP.

- Judge-kick is context-dependent, but I will probably assume judge kick if conditional unless told otherwise.

- Rejecting the argument usually de facto rejects the team.

- Theory is not usually a reason to reject the team outside of conditionality. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that other reject-the-team situations are less common.

***NFA Folks***

- "I do not want to vote on your spec arguments, RVIs, disclosure theory, solvency advocate theory, or similar gobbledygook.* I do not think these arguments have educational merit. This is an exception to my general inclination to be open to all arguments. Be warned: I might not vote on it even these arguments even if they are dropped by the other team, unless you make a serious time commitment and explain to me why your argument is different." - Joe Hamaker

- Neg has a a huge side bias, y'all. 2ARs should accordingly focus on doing overviews, impact calculus, and generally framing the round, as opposed to delivering comprehensive line-by-line answers, as they will be near impossible against a competent opponent.

- NRs should collapse their offense to take full advantage of extra speech time.

Hi,

I’m Alina. My pronouns are she/her. I was mostly a block boy when I debated but I do prefer judging lay style debate rounds. I’m fine with Ks and like open cross x and all that stuff whatever you want to do I just think the most important thing is to have fun.

Tabula Rasa with the exception of easily verifiably false statements.

I believe that claims require evidence and that big claims require a higher standard of proof. Impacts like extinction for example are not compelling to me unless they are very well substantiated or weighed correctly. This means that I might not take extinction actually happening, but a debater whom weighs the massive cost of extinction and substantiates the cost even with an extremely low likelihood of occurrence may win the debate in my judgment. Impacts without weighing are not impacts. Tell me why/how much I should care.

I flow, am able to flow spreading, and will likely allow it especially if the tournament has a TOC bid on the line. I will also take Ks but as the logic of a K is that a real world impact outweighs in round impacts, to win the K I personally, as opposed to the tabula rasa mindset I use for in round impacts, have to be convinced by the K.

Ask me any judging questions before the debating starts as I won't answer once it does.

PARADIGM IS FOR POLICY DEBATE

I competed in NFA-LD for two years in college (2017-2019). I competed in high school PFD and congress for four years (2013-2017) and high school LD for two years. I’m currently in law school. I flow every round carefully, but keep in mind that I haven’t debated in almost half a decade. I’ll vote on literally anything if you prove your case, but here are some things I might do differently from other judges:

1 I don’t believe sending your speech through Speechdrop is an adequate substitute for good speaking. I can keep up with a fast pace, but I refuse to flow anything unintelligible. How fast is too fast? If it’s faster than a typical podcast on 1.5x speed, you’re pushing it. This includes evidence.

2. In the spirit of #1, I generally don’t read speeches or evidence. There are two exceptions. First, if there’s a material dispute about what evidence says, I’ll read the evidence in question. Second, if I feel that you’re misconstruing your cards based on my understanding (or lack thereof) of your argument, I’ll take a look myself. In the spirit of nonintervention, I try to avoid using this second exception. If you read your evidence too fast (see #1), I’ll treat it as if you had no evidence at all.

3. If you lie about what your evidence says, and I find out, I will drop you. If both sides do it, I’ll bottom both sides’ speaker points.

4. If you run a K, assume I haven’t read the literature. Explain it. I won’t let you confuse your way to a win.

5. I have a low threshold for topicality.

If you have follow up questions, you can reach me at mradosevic816@gmail.com

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:
- "I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate how you feel rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my paper, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behoves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

Public Speaking Events: Structure and presentation is important. It should feel like a conversation but not like I'm talking to a friend either so no informal language or tones

Oratory/Informative: I am not opposed to performance pieces when they are natural. If the "interp" feels forced, fake, or mechanical, it throw the speech off for me. Performance pieces should be for a purpose and a gimmick.

Interp Events: Blocking and conviction is key. Just because you have movement does not mean you have blocking. For example walking/running around the room is not blocking unless the script scene really calls for that. Blocking and transitions between character should be clean and clear. Literary merit is just as important as performance and when it comes down to breaking a tie between two amazing performances, I will go with the selection that has the most literary merit.

POI: Binder usage is fine but should be with purpose. Using it as prop for the sole purpose of having a prop is not okay. While I understand that most people memorize their performance this is not supposed to be performed that way. If you are going to memorize your performance do so with a sufficient number of page turns and block in reading from or at least look for a moment at your binder. If you never appear to read from it I will drop your ranking because you have given me a DI/HI. Additionally I am not a fan dropping images or words from your binder from visual effect. The only time I think this is okay is if it is a direct photo copy of the images in the original script or the only words you have spoken while on that page. Outside of this you are using the drops as a prop which is not allowed.

- I judge in a circuit that debates slowly. I prefer quality of argumentation to quantity.

- My default is to evaluate the round as a policymaker, but I'll listen to arguments about why I should do otherwise. I'll vote on a procedural or critical argument if you give me some good and clear reasons for doing so.

- I did policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and studied philosophy in grad school.

Chris Rothgeb

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Head Coach

I currently coach the following events: Policy, LD, Public Forum, Congress, Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, Storytelling, Prose, Poetry, Duet Acting), USX, IX, OO, Info, Radio Speaking.

Former Assistant and Head Coach at Jefferson City High School, Jefferson City, MO

I debated Policy, LD, and PF in High School. I debated Policy for 2 semesters in college at Missouri State University. I have also judged NFA LD and College Policy/CEDA/NDT.

Policy Debate (below)

In high school and in college, I almost always gave the 1AR.

Role as the judge - I tend to not define what judge I am in a single term. Basically, whatever you present, I will listen to and evaluate that.

Flash Time - When someone is flashing evidence, NO ONE IS PREPPING!! I will count off your own prep time if you are prepping while someone is flashing.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life a little easier and I can be a better judge for you.

If you are unclear, I will yell for you to be clearer. If you continue to be unclear, I will dock speaker points.

I will read evidence if I believe that it is important. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I do not. I will only read the un-underlined portion of evidence if it is brought up in the round and I believe it to be important to decide the outcome of the round. I don't usually do this though.

Topicality - I have voted on T in the past, but that does not mean I like it. If the aff is being blatantly untopical, then T is clearly going to matter. If there is no offense from either side, I will discard T. Make it count.

Theory - Theory debates are so tricky. I was never really exposed to theory until college and it still confuses me today. If you decide to go this route, make it count and explain it well. You do not have to dumb it down, but you need to explain it.

Kritiks - Again, I never debated K in high school. It just wasn't a thing in my circuit. I only did K debates in college because my partners wanted to. I never understood them which made it difficult to convey to the judge. This is important to know. If you do not fully understand your K position, then you cannot explain it that well to me. This presents a problem when it comes down to me making an evaluation of the round. The other thing I find with most K debates is that no one ever tells me the "why" component - or the Impacts. The theory behind the K may be super interesting, but what is the actual application to the round? If you cannot explain this, odds are I will have a hard time making the K matter in my decision.

AFF duties - You must read a plan in the 1AC. This is non-negotiable to me. Waiting until after the 1AC to read a plan is abusive and we just wasted 16 minutes of good speaking time.

Performance debates - I have only ever seen 1 performance debate in my entire career. I didn't vote for it. Not because it wasn't effective, but because they couldn't defend it. Keep that in mind.

Speed - I am "okay" with speed. Most people seem to think that if they read it fast enough, that counts. This is incorrect. If I cannot perceive your words, then I cannot digest the information that you are presenting. BE CLEAR!! Just because you can speak fast, does not mean that I can digest it that fast. I need to be able to understand what is going on in the round in order to make the most accurate decision after the round. On the standard 1-to-9 scale from the NSDA (with 1 being slow and conversational and 9 being rapid and fast), I would go with a 5. If you are speaking and I am not flowing, you are going too fast. I will tell you to be clear, but I will NOT tell you to slow down.

In-round K - I put Language K and Speed K here. Unless the other team is ACTUALLY being abusive, then this should NOT happen. Again, I need impacts.

Abuse - Potential abuse is not a reason to vote someone down. If you feel you were actually at a disadvantage in the round caused by the other team cheating, or what-not, then show that to me.

TL;DR - Impact your arguments.

Have fun with the debate! This is supposed to be fun! So enjoy it! A bad attitude is so easy to see for a judge and it makes me not have fun either. Then we are all sitting there with bad attitudes for an hour and a half. No one wants that.

I really enjoy case and DA debates the best. Impact analysis is always fun to judge. I will listen to all of your arguments - that I can promise you. But you need to make it count.

World Schools (below)

Summer 2022 is my first time judging WSD. All I ask is to be respectful towards each other with POI. Turning down too many points will lose some speaker points. Be sure to carry your arguments from the first speech all the way through (unless you are strategically kicking out of arguments). Make sure you are keeping the big picture in mind. This is a holistic debate -be holistic. 

National Tournament Paradigm Available through National Tournament Site.

Beyond the filled out card NSDA requires, I'm interested in accessible debate. Don't gatekeep the activity by making it harder to understand. (This is especially applies to K's, some kinds of Theory, speed/spread, and unnecessary jargon that clutters the debate space). Every time you use the phrase "cold concedes", J Scott Wunn sheds another tear.

Debate IS an educational communication activity first and foremost. To that end, passing a card to your opponents and not reading it aloud, or any other version of the debate being "on paper but not verbal" (which includes reading at a pace that exceeds public retention of ideas) is a self-defeating practice in the activity that I strongly discourage. If you're right, but you can't articulate it in a way someone who has never watched a debate before can appreciate, it doesn't matter!

If you can't trust your partner to give their speech without your constant input, don't do a team debate. I want to vote for good teams, not someone trying to carry or someone who is too controlling to maintain decorum.

In every form of debate, there should be detailed voting issues!

If you cannot appear civil, it doesn't matter if you're right in a space like this. People don't want to listen to shouting. Decorum is a part of debate, always.

More words don't make better arguments.

A preponderance of evidence does not win debates.

Speaking at a strategically increased rate of speed is counter to the spirit of an intellectual and equitable debate.

All three part of the rhetorical triangle should be used in near equal measure: logos, ethos, and pathos.

I am a parent judge with some cursory knowledge of the topic, however this is my first day judging at TOC 2022 for this topic. Please slow down, make your arguments simple and explain them clearly and concisely. I will not evaluate any theory or critique arguments. Not only will you lose the round, but you will also get ZERO speaker points. I am tech over truth but the more absurd your argument the less the other team needs to say to prove their point. If you use they/them pronouns please let us know at the beginning of the round. Please speak slowly, signpost, and weigh. You are to keep your own time. Lastly, please add me to the email chain, I must see any documents being shared. Please provide your cases either in that e-mail chain or to me directly at jeffaseidman@gmail.com Good luck!

Name: Jay Stubbs

School Affiliation: Bellaire High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: Since the event was introduced

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: PF did not exist when I competed

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 38 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: High School and College

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Congress, Extemp

What is your current occupation? Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery Clarity for understanding is most important

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Line by line on most important issues along with big picture to guide the way the debaters want me to vote.

Role of the Final Focus Final resolution of key issues along with framing the decision for the judge.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches Essential for key arguments in the round.

Topicality Can be run if there are blatant violations…anything can be found to be non-topical via definition…that is a waste of time.

Plans This is a function of the wording of the resolution. Acceptable when the resolution suggests a specific action.

Kritiks Are not going to persuade me.

Flowing/note-taking Is a function of the clarity of debaters in the round. Clarity makes it much easier to keep all issues organized on the flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Clarity is most important to me. Just because a debater makes an argument doesn’t mean that I understand it or know how to weigh it in relation to other arguments without intervention. Clarity brings meaning to important arguments…clarity explains how to weigh arguments against other issues. Providing clarity early in the round is essential when it comes to evaluating arguments as the evolve throughout the round. Waiting until the end of the round to provide clarity can be too late.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No…new arguments should have been introduced earlier in the round. An extension of a key argument is a part of argument evolution.

Congress

I evaluate your arguments in a Congress session in relation to your effectiveness in delivering them. An effective Congressional Debater is one who is committed to making sure that the judge understands the arguments and information they are presenting. When a debater's commitment is limited to getting information into the debate they are assuming that I will gain the same understanding of the information that they have.

Introductions should be creative when possible. Generic intros are frowned upon greatly.

Good arguments should contain both evidence from qualified sources AND analysis.

Devoting time to the summary/conclusion is very important.

Ending speeches at 3:00 is very important. Speeches ending at 3:10 show a lack of discipline and preparation.

Questioning should be focused on exposing weaknesses in opponent's arguments. Questions that cause little to no damage are of marginal value. There should never be a time when the questioner and respondent are both talking at the same time for more than a brief moment.

Respondents should view questioning as an opportunity not an adversarial activity. Attitude and unnecessary aggression will be scored lower. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable if there is no reasonable reason why you should know the answer. I would like to NEVER hear the answer "I am sure you could tell me." I can not tell you how much I really don't appreciate that response in a questioning period.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 6+ years on the lay and circuit level and continue to participate in speech and debate events at UC Berkeley. I have experience judging a wide variety of formats. To win my ballot, spend a continuous amount of time explaining why you win and weighing impacts & evidence. I really like clear voters at the end of the debate to truly explain why I should vote your way.

How I determine rounds:

- I am very flow-centric. I will only vote on arguments that make it into the last rebuttals.

- I go mostly w/ an offense-defense paradigm. Offensive args are assigned more weight than defensive args.

General preferences:

- Don't go too fast on non-carded arguments in your FW. I need pen time.

- Speed is fine, as long as you're clear.

- Don't steal prep time. I will start CX right after the speech ends. There is no "time out" period after speeches and before CX.

- Sign post where you are. Be organized.

- MAKE CHOICES. Don't extend every argument you made. Pick and choose. Debate is about strategy.

- Don't sign-post by author. I'll be honest, I am flowing your arguments, NOT your authors. If you say "off their Smith card..." I don't know what you're talking about.

- I will likely not vote on disclosure theory, as I believe that things that happen before/after the round are not in my jurisdiction. My jurisdiction as a judge starts with the 1AC and ends after the last speech.

Argument preferences:

- Really, I don't care. You can do whatever style you prefer.

Background in debate: I debated policy for four years in high school, and I debated NDT/CEDA policy for four years in college. I have coached all events at this point.

LD-specific stuff:

- I don't care whether you have a traditional value/criterion case, or a policy-esque or kritik case. You do you.

- I really don't prefer cases that are 95% framework and 5% topical substance. It's not that I won't vote for these types of cases, but I can't say that I like them.

- I do think you need to be "topical" in the sense that you are talking about the topic. There are lots of ways to talk about the topic, but you should be advocating for something that agrees w/ the direction of the topic if you're aff. When you're neg, you can negate the aff in a variety of ways, as long as you have a link to the aff.

- Theory is fine. But you've got to slow down if you expect me to write it down.

- I'm very, very unlikely to vote for 'tricks.' Like,really unlikely. I recommend you don't read them in front of me.

Speech docs, evidence:

- Yes, I want to be included on the email chain. My email is htripe@omahamarian.org.

- However, this doesn't mean that I'm going to be following along in your doc. Chances are, I won't even open up the doc during the round unless there is an evidence challenge/indict raised by one of the debaters.

- Sending your speech doc is part of prep time. This should theoretically take you no more than 10 seconds if you've practiced.

- I will likely NOT read a bunch of evidence after the round. Debate is an oral activity, and you should communicate the important warrants from your evidence to me during your speeches.

I am currently an assistant coach at Lansing. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.

LD:

1. Speed: I don't like speed in Policy and I certainly don't like it in LD... I will be flowing the round (not following a file share), so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot.
2. Values/VC's: I am a firm believer that this is a Value debate, and that your Value is the heartbeat of your case in the round. So, without a Value premise still standing at the end of the round it is difficult for me to vote your way.
3. Impact Calculus: A KeyVo for me in every round will be who has reiterated the greater impacts in the round. Show me clearly how your side has the greater impact on the things that matter in life and you'll be set up well for my ballot.
4. Neg Arguments:While I DO believe you can offer alternatives to the Aff stance to make your arguments, I am NOT a proponent of CP's in LD. Having said that, I do NOT consider it a CP if you simply say, "Look at what X country did and it worked well for them" when opposing the Aff stance.
5. K's: While I'd probably prefer we didn't run K's in LD, please see point 3 under my CX Paradigm for my stance on K's.

CX:

While I am an experienced Coach, there are a handful of preferences you need to know about me for CX in particular:

1. Terminal Impacts: NOT a fan... If you choose to run them, it will be in your best interest to link them to something tangible either past or present. If they are based on the future, you better have some serious links that PROVE that they WILL be happening in the immediate future. Basing terminals straight on hypotheticals are generally no bueno for me...
2. Speed: Also not a fan... If you choose to spread, you are risking my ballot. I will not be reading your case through a file share, I will be flowing, so if I can't keep up then you are risking a pathway to my ballot. However, if I am the only one on the panel that doesn't like spreading, RIP me and I'll do my best...
3. K's: Not against voting for them, BUT you better explain them as if you are speaking to a toddler so I can follow it. They also better be impactful.
4. CP's: I will definitely vote for these if you can prove your new proposal outweighs the proposed. I believe that in Policy these are one of the only ways you can gain good Offense as the Neg, so definitely will vote for them if they solve better.
5. Topicality: I will vote on T, especially if the Aff Plan is wacky and untopical. If it's clearly topical, Neg may want to go for something else.
6. Stock Issues: These are the key voting issues in my mind for every Policy Round.
7. Neg Arguments: If you decide to go for multiple arguments throughout the round, I would very much prefer that you DO NOT drop all but 1 and go for only it in the 2NR. This feels like a huge waste of time throughout the entire round. Link the whole round together and tell me how you've won and how the proposed plan fails to meet the standards of a plan worth implementing.
8. Aff Teams: Successfully support your plan throughout the round. Tell me how this plan is the best idea for the USFG. Win the Stock Issues. Make your Advantages outweigh.

brianwinckler@bolivarschools.org

Hey y'all, I'm going to keep this brief.

Limitations: While I can certainly process fast talking, I'm much more wary about spreading.

Speaks: Respectful behavior, fluency, and speaking ability will factor into my decision. As this is Public Forum, I also am a proponent of pathos and will factor that into speaks. Even if a team wins on the flow, if I believe that the other team was more appealing to listen to, they may receive higher speaking points in a low point win.

RFD: I will judge on the flow. Any argument will be tolerated (substance, friv, norms theory, Ks, etc.), that being said, I will evaluate arguments for why PF should stay traditional as well.

Please extend, extend, extend — but I will not drop an argument even if it is not perfectly extended (unless it is completely absent in final focus). I am not a fan of debaters arguing that their opponents contentions should be dropped simply because they forgot to extend a warrant or a link in a speech. I will not judge a round off of a technicality.

Weighing is important, but it won't win a round on its own. If one team is dominating another, but forgets to weigh, they will still likely win. I'd rather weighing be mentioned in Summary (and Rebuttal, if you're up for it), but I will allow it to be introduced in Final Focus. It must be implicated with the impacts of both teams in mind.

Feel free to ask any clarifying questions before the round begins.

Good luck!

Conflicts: Minnetonka

Background:

Did mainly LD and some policy in college.

Update 11/27/20

Nat circuit debaters should try to make the round as accessible as possible for local circuit debaters. I will intervene on behalf of the local circuit debater.

Overview of Debate:

Debate is a competitive educational activity to me. I think you should be well prepared and polished in your augments regardless of the format or type of circuit you participate in. At the end of the round I expect debaters to have made a strategic and well articulated argument to win my ballot.

Better to ask questions before round.

Specifics:

K - These are good if done correctly. I do tend to vote often for ID politics

Plans/DA/CP - Good

Philo that isn't tricks - Good, I will probably understand at an intro/intermediate level

Tricks - part of the game but I don't really enjoy these and haven't voted off of them in awhile

Theory - Actual abuse will be most persuasive to me otherwise I'll probably buy the reasonability arguments

T - Probably should defend the topic but I'm not super set on it.

Quick notes:

Debate is a game.

Evidence quality matters.

I prefer if you run arguments that make sense.

I generally do not enjoy voting for tricks and have not in most rounds.

Other than that do w/e you feel.