Policy- I'm tab. I like people to go slower, I feel like as a community speaking quickly and reading more cards have come at the cost of analysis and comparison. To earn my ballot with ease do more of that comparison. I'm fine with Ks, CPs, theory and T. I even like T when done well. I did high school and college policy and look forward to judging the round! 

"Get off my lawn" old person gripes- 

-Don't prep when a timer isn't running. 

-Please don't ask if people read everything in a document, or asking if they could tell you what all they read. Unless circumstances show they've obscured what they did, you just look like you weren't listening or flowing. This makes CX like a episode recap when you've been binging a show. 

-Please don't just say "then the case flow." Still not helpful. Tell me which pages and in which order.

-Be kind. You can give hard hitting questions and answers while still being polite. 

-You may want to look at your judge during CX. It will give you an impression of what they think is a good or bad idea for a line of argumentation you may pursue. Remember- you're trying to convince the one with the ballot you're right, not your opponent. 

-Open CX- I'm totally fine with CX being open. If you are the main person in that CX from  your side, you should still be doing a majority of the questioning/answering and your partner should only chime in when needed. You need your time to shine too! I will lower speaker points for the partner that is more of a back pack. By which I mean just standing up there because it is their cross examination, but doesn't really speak or add to the CX. 

-Finally- be respectful of all of our time. Try to be quick to start prep, move to the next speech, flash/email with speed. If you mosey, you'll irk me. 

Note- I will say clear once and then just let you roll. I don't write down things I can't understand, but most speed is fine. I may also not be up on the topic lingo as I have judge 15 or less policy debates on this year's topic.

Primarily, I consider "clash," or direct engagement with the opposing argument and defense of one's own.

Equally though, I value coherence, or the logical consistency and organization of an argument, as well as the support of objective facts from credible sources.

Of secondary importance I look for civil, respectful demeanor, and delivery that is accurate, grammatical, confident, and expressive. Please don't speak so quickly that I can't take notes.

I prefer an argument built on solid evidence and reasoning, rather than one hung on formalities or technicalities. Whoever presents the most convincing case wins the round.

Updated for NSDA ‘19:

This year I have judged fewer rounds than I have in years past. I’m not nearly as familiar with positions and the lit base. The biggest thing for me is overviews, both positional and global to explain your arguments and how I should be evaluating the round. Write my rfd for me.

I debated for four years in high school and have been a coach for three. In general, being clear about what you’re arguing (like giving overviews) makes me more comfortable voting for you. Assume that I am not familiar with the argument/literature of your 1AC, K, etc.

You can add me to the email chain (Parker.Davis23@gmail.com). I’m not going to sit and read through it during your speeches, meaning you still should make sure we’re on the same page and that I can understand you. If debate was just everyone sending speech docs back and forth we could all stay home and save a lot of time and money.

I find that my worst decisions come in two types of rounds: The first is when I’m not told what to evaluate and how to do it. In those instances, I may just have to pick what I see as the biggest disparities and start there, which may not be good if you and I see the round differently. The second is when I am in a round between two very good teams that are engaging at a high level (and generally pretty fast) on positions I am not super familiar with. In these types of rounds I still need clear and precise extensions in the 1AR and clear voters in the 2NR/2AR. The more time you devote to overviews and clear extensions/analysis, the more I'll actually be able to understand the argument.

Feel comfortable to do what you do best, but here are some specific thoughts:

Framework – If you are able to successfully frame the round in your favor, it can go far to help you win the round. It is important that both teams engage each other’s interpretations instead of just reading and extending.

Case Debate – Specific on-case arguments can be very compelling. I always have believed that smart analytics are preferable to just reading a bunch of cards.

DA/CPs – The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.

Kritikal Debate – Sort of like what I said under case debate, taking the time to evaluate why the K is the most important impact in round is preferable to just reading your cards and extending them in later speeches. I think 2NC attempts to gain inroads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency can be persuasive and is a helpful way for me to evaluate the K against the aff. I'm fine with kritikal affirmatives so long as you explain what exactly I'm endorsing by voting affirmative.

Topicality – My threshold for T is the same as any other stock argument. I think of standards/reasons to prefer as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means that comparative impact calculus is important for any 2NR going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative’s. That also means that proving in-round abuse isn’t necessary if you’re winning the standards debate, but it does make it a lot easier to vote on T.

Theory – Theory becomes easier to evaluate when actual clash takes place instead of just reading blocks and not engaging with the other team’s argument. If you expect to solely win on theory you should give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits a rejection of the team and not just the argument.

Non-Traditional Debate – If I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that both teams can reasonably meet, I don’t care what you do.

Speed – I think I’m slower than a lot of judges. Breaking up your cadence and tone between tags/authors/analytics and warrants will help you make sure I don’t miss anything.

Speaker Points – 27.5 is average. I’ll add points for things like clarity and efficiency and subtract for messy debating or getting too harsh with your opponents/partner.

Feel free to ask any questions.

I'm a traditional LD coach/judge. I coach CX, as well, but don't care to see CX-style argumentation (CPs, Ks, etc.) in LD (or PF) rounds. That includes CX-style speed. I look for who resolves clash by winning the substantive issues, preferably with a coherent story or clear voters in the rebuttals. I think your values framework is central to warranting how I should interpret the resolution, and any corresponding arguments you make about obligations of how to act should be internally linked to this framework.

In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.

Speech Events

You will see my paradigm on the RFD.

General Debate

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, you are begging for the loss.

Speed - I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive speech and debate. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Off time roadmaps - Please make them on time roadmaps.  You speak, my timer starts.

Voters - If you don't provide them, I have to choose.  Don't roll the dice.

Evidence - You get two free card requests, for the rest must be on your prep time.

Cross - Is non binding. if you uncover something, bring it up in your next speech.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Kritiks and counter plans - Don’t - wrong event to run those.

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

Ethics violations - Do not propose these lightly. If you assert an ethical violation, you have the burden of proof. If you don’t meet it, you lose the debate.

Public Forum

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

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

Plans/Counterplans - No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

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

Burden Interpretations - The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof, clash, and persuasion.

Rebuttals in Crossfire - Don’t. I reserve the right to stop a crossfire that ceases to be in a question-answer format or one that becomes abusive.

Congressional Debate

This is one of my favorite events. I want to see you address the chamber and persuade me (and them) with ethos, pathos, and logos. I am a sucker for mythos-driven analogies on the topic or why the other side falls. I give bonus points for good constructive speeches (authorship/sponsorship and 1st neg), especially if you address the chamber. I dislike it when arguments are rehashed/repeated and later speeches do not address the congressional record to date (or worse misrepresent it). In later speeches, I want to see crystallization, impact analysis, and weighing. I break ties in ranking on questions and procedural motions that benefit the flow of debate and the chamber.

Big Questions

Please be sure to address and answer the question.  The event is asking that you take a comprehensive and broad perspective to the question or the inverse of the question.

I competed in Trad LD for 4 years and currently coach Trad LD in Colorado. I am a flow/experienced judge. I love clash and I love a good debate. I vote based on the flow and coverage first. I vote second based on the quality of the arguments and rebuttal efficacy.

Speed/Spreading: I do not want you to read your fastest. Save that for practice and your friends. I can handle moderate speed. If you choose to spread, I will give you the benefit of saying CLEAR once in the round if you are incomprehensible/going too quickly for me. After this point, if I do not understand you, I will not flow your arguments.

Kritiks, Counterplans, etc: if you choose to run these arguments, the burden is on you to make sure I comprehend them. Impact the importance of your K, counterplan, etc. Why should I care about this argument?

Rebuttals: You do not need to repeat what your opponent has said in previous speeches - signpost and then make your arguments.

Timekeeping: I ask that you keep your own time. However, I am the official timekeeper of the round and will be keeping time as well. I do this for one main purpose - to keep all debaters honest about speech and prep times.

Professionalism: I expect a moderate amount of professionalism in the round. I will not fault you for any technical issues, nor for your background/surrounding noise. I will also not fault you for dress. However, I expect professional behavior in the round. I will lower speaker points for rude behavior, and if I believe it was too aggressive or abusive, I will vote you down. It's okay to be confident, it's not okay to be cocky.

Signpost, signpost, signpost. I won't guess where you want me to flow an argument. You don't want me to guess anyway. Lay it out for me clean and upfront.

Additionally, give me some voters in your final speech. Tell me all the ways you won (while keeping attitude in check).

And finally, I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. I'll leave RFD and comments on the ballot. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round starts. I'm not opposed to explaining more or answering other questions not addressed here.

I miss the old Cap K, straight from the Go Cap K

Chop up the soul Cap K, set on his goals Cap K

I hate the new Cap K, the bad mood Cap K

The always rude Cap K, spaz in the news Cap K

I miss the sweet Cap K, chop up the beats Cap K

I gotta say, at that time I'd like to meet Cap K

See, I invented Cap K, it wasn't any Cap Ks

And now I look and look around and there's so many Cap Ks

I used to love Cap K, I used to love Cap K

I even had the pink polo, I thought I was Cap K

What if Cap K made a song about Cap K

Called "I Miss The Old Cap K"? Man, that'd be so Cap K

That's all it was Cap K, we still love Cap K

And I love you like Cap K loves Cap K

Biography

I have a MA in literature from the University of Colorado, Boulder, and am familiar with many of the writers cited in K's. It excites me to see young people still utilize this philosophy; however, it does not excite me when people might run a K and then also run a counterplan that the K would also critique. I am all for theory, but be genuine about it. Fred Moten wrote in The University and the Undercommons, "The prophet is the one who tells the brutal truth, who has the capacity to see the absolute brutality of the already-existing and to point it out and to tell that truth, but also to see the other way, to see what it could be." A K is that willingness to speak the brutal truth and then invest in the alternative of what it could be. A K is not to speak the brutal truth and then turn around and propose a counterplan that only perpetuates the systemic violence inherent in a brutal truth

Lincoln-Douglas.

I value debate as a speaking and listening event and also as an education event. After all, the original Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates were a platform for two senate candidates to meaningfully introduce themselves to voters during the 1858 senate election in Illinois. Also as a consolation to anyone who really tries their hardest in round but winds up losing: Lincoln also lost that senate election. Debate isn't just about winning and losing. Speech and debate is about growing your confidence to prepare you for an even bigger thing in your life.

I hope you as debaters also value communication and thoughtfulness in your own presentation during round by doing your best to meet the following standards:

1. Talking clearly and deliberately. I understand urgency, but you can still be urgent and intelligible.
2. Being mindful of your language. I understand a lot of debate lingo has made our community increasingly esoteric. Words such as "cross apply," "inherency," "exploding grounds for debate," etc. don't mean much of anything to the outside community. They certainly wouldn't have won neither Douglas nor Lincoln any votes. Please do not throw your case or rebuttals full of a lot of jargon. Don't just say "cross apply my Jackson '24 card to their contention 1" when doing a rebuttal. I flow and take notes, but I am not making sure I copy down authors; instead, I'm doing my best to follow your argument.
3. Being mindful of your language (part 2). Please don't use a phrase like "my opponent is being abusive." Abuse is a very specific physical, emotional, and psychological horror. Just say your opponent is being unfair.
4. Doing the work for the audience. Give me clear voter issues that crystallize the round and properly weigh what has been said. I'm still flowing though, so be mindful that you don't strawman or misrepresent your fellow debater's positions! I really dislike it when a debater says another debater "dropped their whole contention 1" when in fact they probably did address it.
5. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate. For Colorado debaters, this means no grace period for speeches! Secondly, during cross if someone asks a question at 2:45 or so, that other person can respond, but please keep the response concise.
6. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 2). I do not participate in email chains or case sharing. My role as a judge is to listen to each debater communicate their case verbally to an audience including myself. Speech and debate is a speaking event. It's not like the US Court of Appeals where over 90% of cases from the appellate are decided by just three judges reviewing written cases.
7. Respecting the audience and the conventions of the debate (part 3). If you suspect dishonest behavior like misrepresented or powertagged evidence, slow it down and make the case. Don't rely on debate jargon like "the internals of the card does not support their warrant." Break it down for me and spell it out. Also, tell me you want me to pull this card. I don't intervene as a judge unless I am explicitly asked to.

Public Forum Debate (formerly known as Ted Turner Debate)

The original category for PF debate suggests its interest in being arguably the most accessible form of debate. Named after media mogul Ted Turner, PF should give the audience an approachable view of the topic that is ultimately educational. Imagine you are on some distinguished network like PBS and you represent the very best of advocates for your position--like David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart for example (on PBS). All seven of my interests from LD apply to PF.

I'm a former PF competitor, but have been coaching all forms of debate for the last seven years. I also dabbled with parliamentary debate in college. I will vote down all Ks in PF.

In CX, I will typically vote on whatever debaters make important in the round. I'm fine with forms of typically "non-traditional" debate like K's, theory blocks, etc. I cannot flow at the fastest speeds people will spread, but typically can still follow all arguments presented.

In LD, I prefer traditional LD to progressive LD. The timings involved in the event make 1:1 CX debate really hard to watch, and require the judge to do a lot of work on behalf of the competitors. Core Value/Criterion clash is important for determining the framework of the round, but it only determines how we weigh the other arguments in the round, not who wins overall.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm: My approach to judging Lincoln Douglas debate is to vote based on whether or not I should affirm the resolution. I will try to evaluate it from one or both of the frameworks put forward by the debaters. If one of the debaters persuades me that their framework is better than their opponent's, then I will use that framework to evaluate the arguments made by the debaters to determine how I should respond to the resolution. If neither debater conclusively wins the framework debate, I may see if either debater wins under both frameworks or if one of them was superior in terms of overall persuasiveness.

I think there is some ground for interesting interpretation of the language of resolutions, but whether an interpretation of language in the resolution is ultimately reasonable is something that the debaters can attempt to debate over to persuade me one way or another. In general, the more novel the interpretation, the stronger the arguments need to be to justify the interpretation.

First things first- YOU ARE AMAZING! Look at you, doing speech and debate. You give me a renewed sense of hope in the future of our world. I'm proud of you.

LD/PF

I appreciate clear speech, a cadence that I can follow. Do not yell at me. Do not yell at your opponent.

Please be kind and respectful of each other. Especially in cross. On time roadmaps. You get two free card requests; any more than that must be used during your prep time.

I will keep time, feel free to keep your own time as well, however, I do not want to hear an alarm go off. It's distracting for your opponent(s) and for me.

Please do not stare at your laptop and read your speech. I'm not here to listen to you recite a paper you wrote. I appreciate eye contact and speaking from knowledge and passion. I want to hear sources. I want to experience clash. Attack your opponent's speech. Do not spread. I cannot follow when you speak so fast I can't hear your Value, Value C, Contentions, Definitions....etc. If I can't follow, I'm not flowing and therefore, those items will not flow through.

Speech

Do you embody your character(s), blocking? Is your piece funny (humor), does it get to my heart (drama), are you passionate (poetry), can I follow what you're saying, is it cohesive and does it grab my attention? (OO) I don't love when you use a large portion of your time (more than 30 seconds) for an introduction to your piece. Also, I don't want to be lectured in an acting piece about your personal views that you then make normative to the rest of the world. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. Don't use your introduction to state something as fact that is in fact, not a fact.

I judge on both the strong content of the argument with a strong emphasis on treating the opponent with dignity and respect. Arguments, despite their content, loose efficacy when overpowered by responses that attack the opponent versus their argument. This will be reflected in how I judge presentations.

I flow carefully, and I look for who has command of the round in terms of content, organization, and delivery. I love when you give me a clear reason for decision in your closing speech, and I tend to be swayed by weighing arguments. Debate is a public speaking activity, so I will pay attention to presentation.

Seth Willden

Debate Philosophy and Paradigm

I have no desire to see your case. I have no desire to be a part of an email chain. I want you, the debater, to make your arguments clear and thoughtful and ingestible for your judge.

I have been a coach of Speech and Debate for 5 years. I have been a community judge for 8 years. I teach research, writing, and speaking at the high school level and have taught at the college level as well. My background is rhetorical theory and criticism. I have judged LD in local Colorado Tournaments, and the National Speech and Debate Tournament. I would consider the majority of the judging and coaching I do centers on a “traditional” paradigm. But that brings with it a lot of baggage. So read on, dear competitor.

With my background in mind, I am primarily interested in debate as a pedagogical tool and an art.

A good round of debate demonstrates that both debaters have done research, organized their ideas well, and thought about how to defend their position(s). Both debaters will make it clear to the adjudicator of their position(s), and do their utmost to be convincing with solid evidence, questioning, and extemporizing. Debate is audience centered, meaning that effective communication should be at the forefront of the activity. If the arguments are not clear to the judge (rate of speed, inflection, organization, display of research), then the debate is all for naught.

The number of arguments you present is not positively correlated with the quality of those arguments. A few developed arguments are far more sound than a handful of cards you are able to fit into a 7 minute case. I know most Americans like to go down to Costco and buy cheese in bulk, but often the best cheese is handcrafted, cared for, and savored. Savor the arguments. Debate is an art, after all.

I will flow the debate as best I can, but debaters should make considerations for virtual competition space. You might need to slow down to make your arguments. And that’s okay. That fourth contention might have to wait for a judge more willing to listen.

Judging Style - Debate is an art, and therefore art can take a variety of forms. Values and Value Criterions are often helpful in adjudicating a round, so I prefer to have them situate the affirmative case. Debaters should try to see how each other’s values interact with one another, in order for the debate to have the desired “clash.”

I try to keep up on philosophy and rhetorical theory. I may not be particularly well versed on your thread, but I am generally familiar with Foucault, DeCerteau, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Barthes. Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, and Machiavelli. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Isocrates, Quintillian, Cicero. Israel, Rawls, Kant. Queer theory, Cornel West, Judith Butler, Frantz Fanon. I will follow your position as best I can. If you misrepresent an idea, it may impact my decision making.

Oftentimes I see debaters travel far afield from the resolution in question. Try to maintain the resolution impact. Critiques of the resolution are welcome, but blanket K’s are not a helpful pedagogical tool in debate. There are many platforms for us to scrutinize debate praxis, but in the middle of the round it just gets a bit too metacognitive to be helpful.

We know that debate in practice has been harmful to some folks. LGBTQ+ folks, Black folks, and women in particular. Debaters who portray a persona of white hypermasculinity and use it as a tool to bully or demean other debaters will be marked down. 2020 has thrown us a lot of things. We want to make sure that debate is a safe place for us all. So be kind.