I am a parent judge with experience in PF, LD, and Policy debate judging. I appreciate clearly identified and well supported contentions, roadmapping, speaking at an understandable pace, and respectful cross fire. I do not appreciate spreading. I like to flow while I'm judging a round. I prefer traditional debate to approaches like counter plans or progressive frameworks. I am a public policy professional in the field of natural resource policy. I write regulations and develop national policies as part of my every day job. Ultimately winning the day on a policy decision is not about overly complicating the issues, but about solving a problem with well supported evidence and facts that the public can understand and finds credible and defensible.

I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework 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.

Public Forum Paradigm

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.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

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.

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. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

Prefer cordial, holistic, and congenial analysis.

Use of data as well as understanding of scientific theory is essential.

Be kind.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

I coach at a 3A high school in Kansas. I'm a policymaker in that I look for impacts and weigh them against the defense in the round.

Do not tell me about the rules of debate unless there is an impact to your argument. The impact could be fairness or something.

Generic DAs are fine if the links are clearly analyzed.

Topicality is super important. I weigh it first, but don't run it on the biggest aff on the topic.

CPs are fine, although I'm not crazy about topical CPs.

Kritiks are acceptable in context. However, I didn't do policy debate in high school or college, so am I going to understand it by the end of your speech? The odds of me 1. understanding your k lit, and 2. being able to see nuance in your k lit during cross-ex or prep time between constructives is pretty low if I've never seen it before. Am I going to see why it can't be permutated? Are you running it just to confuse your opponent into defeat? Does it clearly link? Are you not winning on anything else on the flow? Maybe it's a better idea to shelve it this round...

Kindness is a voter.

I prefer moderate contest speed.

I flow. Please keep your speech organized.

Speech:

Debate:

I have some competitive experience in lay debate, though not much. I'm the judge you'll definitely complain about if you're a tech-heavy debater. Spreading is definitely a no-go. I won't vote entirely on fluency because that's not how debate works, but if you're talking so fast I can't understand your case, I won't be able to tell if you're making better arguments. If it's possible, cut the debate jargon down as much as you can and focus on the meat of the argument. I will flow, so again, speak slowly so I have time to follow along and write.

Congress:

I am a WSD judge, stick to the WSD format. Don't turn this into a policy or LD debate. Also, I really look for clash on the issue. Ask them hard POI's, clash on the issues you see as important, don't just reiterate your case. I love debate, so let's clash respectfully on the issue.

Name: Kate Bertolet
Affiliation: Hamilton Southeastern HS, Fishers, IN

Background:
I was a speaker for Boone County High School in Florence, KY from 2010-2012. I placed in the Top 12 at NIETOC in 2011 with my Original Oratory. I was away from the activity during college and my first 3 years of teaching because the school did not have a team. When I began teaching at HSE and learned of their team, I knew I had to be involved again! I have coached both sides of our team - speech and debate. I tend to prefer speaking and debate events over interpretation. As a previous speaker, delivery is going to be of utmost importance to me during all rounds.

World Schools Debate

Overview:

I follow the WSD judging model closely. This style of debate is meant to enact world policies or values and should be treated as such. Focusing too narrowly on the scope of your argument could hurt you - you need to evaluate the legitimacy of the resolution on a global scale. This debate style is much more conversational and polite than Policy, PF, or LD and I shouldn't be taken aback by the ferocity with which you ask questions or throw "cards"/evidence. Please no off-time roadmaps. You have 8 minutes for most of your speeches - if you're going to tell me what you're speaking about in those 8 minutes, use part of the 8 minutes to do so.

Content:

Here, I will be looking at the strength of the argumentation presented. This also covers the quality of the rebuttal and ability to defeat opposing arguments. A speaker with a high content score will present arguments that are highly relevant, with clear explanations and logic, and be succinct in flagging the impacts of their arguments. They will be consistent and thorough in their explanation of why their set of beliefs are the strongest arguments in the debate.

Style:

I will be assigning these points based on your ability to deliver your arguments persuasively. There is no one particular style that will be appropriate for all speakers and all debates just as there is no one set of arguments that will win all debates. Things to watch out for: how a speaker uses their voice, their use of gestures, their use of rhetorical techniques and their engagement with the audience.

Strategy:

To me, strategy encompasses two things. The first is the team's structure and timing, the second is their understanding of the issues of the debate.

Structure and timing means a speaker who fills their time and does not under or over speak. It also means having a clear progression of points within the speech which shows a clear sense of priorities in their argumentation.

Understanding the issues of the debate follows on from this clear sense of understanding what the key issues in any given debate are. They will be able to understand which arguments and parts of an argument they must respond to in their speeches (even if their responses are not strong); they will understand what the important things to prove within their arguments are (even if this is not always successful). If a speaker is clearly attempting to do the correct things in terms of argumentation but not proving the things they set out, they may receive a high strategy mark and a lower content mark.

Points of Information:

POIs should be used in replacement of cross-ex to clarify a point or challenge your opponents but be done in a much more courteous and polite manner. They should also be brief - no longer than 15 seconds should be needed to ask any one POI. I will be tracking these to see which team is understanding the flow of the debate best and using these to make significant points rather than just asking to ask.

Final Thoughts:

I'm so excited to see the great debaters that we have compete at the National Tournament! I wish you all the best of luck and look forward to hearing you speak!

I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.

I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.

I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.

I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.

K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.

Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.

So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 16 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.

I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.

That's it. Good luck!

I am old school. I believe LD should be communicative, so spreading is out. I also don't like using terminology that is not easily accessible to the general public. Do not try to overwhelm an opponent with evidence, volume of words, or the such. Overwhelm your opponent with logic.

Ultimately, the decision is made in this order:

1. Who won the value clash? (if neither debater, then...)

2. Whose criterion best supports their value?

3. Whose arguments were more reasonable through evidence and logic?

You must have a value. Do not use any progressive techniques, substitute a role of the ballot for a framework structure, and don't just read your progressive CX cases slower and think I will vote for them. I WANT A PHILOSOPHICAL VALUE DEBATE THAT MY GRANDMA WOULD ENJOY WATCHING.

Pauline Buis's JP: Coach, primarily judges PF and LD, does judge Congress and all Speech events as well

It is my responsibility to be FAIR--I have a irrefutable responsibility to evaluate the case based upon the debate itself, the evidence presented and the delivery.

• Tabla rosa--I will be--I assure you that I will be that and that I have NO preconceived idea of who should win; there is no truth, no knowledge, apart to what is revealed in the debate round, but I will not be an idiot devoid of knowledge to make an educated evaluation. Don't go so deep into hypotheticals and theory that you go out on a limb and fall off. Arguments are expected to be relevant to the resolution.

• Familiarity with topic being judged-- I will be

• Speaking rate of delivery-spreading is abhorred, in order to be effective, you must be understood; debate is the art of rhetoric not an auction or pharmaceutical drug or other such disclaimer speech. I have observed that debaters who try to use speed sacrifice a great deal of understand-ability and persuasiveness. Typically, the amount of evidence added to the case is not worth that sacrifice. As a result, I dislike excessive speed, as I have difficulty flowing the argument, and it seems as though speed becomes more important than persuasion. I would rather see fewer contentions than hear a debater SPREAD to impart a multitudinous number of contentions and then assert a dropped contention on a competitor.

• Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. A debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including: effective reading, clear and understandable articulation and vocal variety, persuasive vocal argumentation, presence, and eye contact. The 1AC & 1NC in particular with regard to speaking and preparation should be well prepared and delivered.

• Lincoln Douglas debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be”. Thus, the debater that upholds his or her value best will likely win the round. Just creating and extending a claim is not enough to win.

• Public Forum debate is either policy, value or fact based. Know and approach the resolution accordingly. Otherwise my paradigm stands and applies.

• Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. It is not sufficient to claim a card for a topic without a link and analysis of topic; in other words, warrants are better when supported with a card. Don't just present a warrant or card and say, "According to ...evidence or card...." Expand upon the warrants, find out what your evidence says; commit to never making a reference to a card without implicit or explicit explanation and analysis. Impacts are why one should care about your argument; they should connect to the broader picture. Do let me know WHY the contention and card are important and how it may interact with other considerations that might also be relevant. And we all know that correlation is not always causation.

• Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity and quality of evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. The contentions should also link back to the value or resolution. See ANALYSIS above.

• Number of issues covered in a debate--Well covered contentions with sub-points over a plethora of contentions not covered in any depth; more is not necessarily better.

• Refutation/ Clash – essential in debate-The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with effective use of evidence and examples.

• Ad hominim--no cheap shots--there are bounds of appropriateness and decorum in debate

• Offense/defense vs reasonability and counterclaims--depends on the issue and resolution

• Paper or Tech--whatever works best for you and what tournament ascribes. If you do use a laptop, please do not hide your face. Regardless whether paper or tech is utilized, do look up and breathe--relax and enjoy the debate.

• The win is determined in your AR, NR and Cross-ex; after all, everyone comes in prepped for the case, but the real debate is won in the rebuttals and cross examination when the debater's preparations and abilities in the art of rhetoric dictate the outcome.

• Speaker points--eye contact, use of hand gestures, body language and posture, rate, volume, tone, vocal inflections, passion and certainly decorum do matter, but it is your case, evidence and and application and analysis thereof that wins the ballot.

CONGRESS:

Again I come in tabla rosa, of course, but do know that I am informed as a coach of legislation presented for the sessions.

PO Judging criteria:

knowledge of parliamentary procedure

clear in explaining procedures and rulings

fair and consistent in order of recognition (recency) and rulings

control the chamber and delegates

efficient and effective in moving chamber business along--avoiding unnecessary verbiage

fosters a respectful, professional and collegial atmosphere

Senators/Representatives:

Originality--advances speech whether refutes or endorses arguments

Organization/Unity--cohesive, pointed contentions realizing often extemporaneous

Evidence and Logic--relevant & reliable, ability to observe, vested, expert, neutral sourced

Delivery--extemp vs read preferred; engage, respect audience, tone serious of purpose and deliberate, passionate and committed, poised

Questions/Open to questions--grasp of issues and ability to defend/endorse position

SPEECH EVENTS: DI, DUO, Info, HI,

All the usuals are judged with an open mind and heart: characterization, vocalization, tech/blocking, environment, cut, intro--don't hesitate to present one that is out-of the box, transitions, timing, the theme and message itself, message...body language, articulation, inflection....

Additional Exclusive FYIs

OO roadmap is optional--respect alternative methods of organization--reliable citations, message, transitions

POI--big fan of this forum

Extemp:

AGD intriguing to start, roadmap essential here for both you and the judge for organization and flow fo speech, relevant and current information that is well cited, comes full circle to a viable conclusion that answers the question.

Respectfully submitted,

Pauline Buis, M. Ed.

English IV, AP Capstone, AICE Classical Studies, Critical Thinking 2, and, of course, our favorite Forensics: Speech and Debate

Speech and Debate in HS and college: LD and Congress, speech events: OO, Inf, Prose and Poetry, Oral Interp, Impromptu and Improv

Coach

Twenty years of coaching speech and debate (LD, PF, and Policy) mostly in Colorado, but last six years in Florida.

Two Colorado PF State Champions, as well as a team that finished 4th in NSDA Nationals. Look for quality arguments that have clean internal links and impacts. I look for teams that know how to properly weigh the opposing positions, and can identify the most impactful arguments that have surfaced in the round. Flow judge, but I can only flow what I can hear, so excessive speed will cost you. The winning team will know how to use each different speech in PF according to its designed intent (e.g. a Final Focus should not look like a frantic line-by-line rebuttal).

Coached state LD champ in Colorado and several NSDA national qualifiers in LD. Fairly traditional in LD judging. Will weigh competing values, but cases must clearly link to value being proposed/defended. Definitely a flow judge, but all arguments are not created equally. Looking for good analysis, and will definitely look for clear links. For that reason, spread is not generally going to impress me as I value quality over quantity. Some speed is fine, but most debaters think they are clearer at speed than they are, and if you fail to clearly communicate your argument, I can't properly flow it. Most kritiks are pretty poorly constructed, and I can only recall picking up a team based on their K one or two times. Debaters like to ask if I will vote on Theory arguments. The simple answer is that it depends on the theory and how well its run.

Also judge WSD. I generally like this form. The key to winning is well constructed argumentation, with proper warrants for your claims (empirical evidence or through logic, both count). This is a unique form and I expect you to use your time well in the way you structure your speeches, build on previous arguments (don't just repeat), and clearly demonstrate how your arguments refute or subsume your opponents. Delivery should be more 'congressional' than that of a spread debater. Quality, not quantity, of argument wins here. Use your POIs well. They are an interesting strategic device.

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

World Schools Paradigm:

Organization, articulation, and "unique" analysis are important to me.

Organization:

Framework, key terms, models, etc need to be very organized and clearly presented. Certainly, clash is important, but w/o good organization, why are we flowing? I follow easier on line-by-line rebuttals.

Articulation:

Communicating efficiently means appropriately balancing what MUST be said with the WAY in which it is spoken. I care less for how many times a speaker "fumbles". I care very little about how much "fluff" can be mixed-in with an argument. I care that what is being said is necessary (straight-forward) and creative. Use analogies, use facts, be credible, but make sure you are being the effective communicator only you know how to be.

"Unique" Analysis:

If using evidence, make sure to briefly, verbally cite it. Evidence doesn't mean much if there is hardly a warrant to it. I am a connoisseur of good impacts and impact analysis. Good evidence is hardly useful if the impacts derived from it aren't clear/unique/relevant.

Did I mention to have fun?

A successful debate performance is one that is easily intelligible and persuasive to a general audience, listeners who are not trained in the arcana of debate terminology, and does so with a rate of delivery that is spirited but does not draw attention to itself by its speed.

Persuasion comes from a Latin word meaning "thoroughly sweet". Being persuasive allows the speaker to challenge the opinions of an audience by a fusion of rigorous logic and an oratorical style that does not offend but which urges the listener to buy into the speaker's take on the great issues of our day..

Br. Anthony K. Cavet

Catholic Memorial School

West Roxbury MA

Nov 19, 2020

email chain - please start one and use it: darren.ch12@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com. reach out for questions/anything to make the debate more accessible. strongly prefer no speechdrop

asst coach for the Blake School (MN) for 3 seasons but don't actively coach => slower pen speed + less/no topic research

cornell '21 - qualified to the ndt if that means anything

carmel (IN) '17 - local circuit pf/policy

excited to watch you debate!

tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. Do what you would like but don't be exclusionary. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.

top level/all events:

---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.

---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others

---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances

---I can be very facially expressive; don't mind me

---slow down for theory

---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.

---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.

---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that evidence/card won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.

---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)

---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)

---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.

---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I wouldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.

---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.

public forum:

---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase because it's usually incomprehensible.

---care a lot about impact calc (no really -- I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/pre-req arguments!

---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.

---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.

---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.

---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to quality only. If you strike a card from the flow, that's not reversible even if you find the evidence later.

---amenable to arguments that the AFF doesn't have to defend the entirety of the resolution in every instance.

---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.

---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.

---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.

---theory thoughts:

I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences - loosely based on Nina Potischman and Nate Odenkirk'sarticle from VBI in 2021.

1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where there is no expectation to know the terminology. CX is a great time to ask (the other team, not me). Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.

2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won and lost) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.

3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.

4) start theory ASAP, e.g., as soon as the violation happens

5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.

6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then there was no impact to theory.

7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold

12/24/25 - typos + don't actively coach anymore

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2024-2025 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last couple of years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds. I am not going to evaluate the round after a certain speech.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

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.

Name: April Palmer

School - LSW

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with policy debate (check those that apply):

A. Assistant Coach of a team

D. Policy debater in HS

F. Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged 20+ years of policy debate.

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate:

Speaking skills -- Be careful not to go too fast. I like conversational speaking. I will stop flowing if I can't understand you.

Stock Issues -- I am "old school" debate and will judge based on the flow as well. Who makes the best and quality arguments for each issue.

Policymaker --

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality IF it is deemed important and worthy of flipping the round.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are acceptable IF it is deemed the only alternative. Then argue quality arguments for/against each side.

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: Not a good idea unless you have very specific links to the case.

PF: Same as Policy:

Speaking skills -- Be careful not to go too fast. I like conversational speaking. I will stop flowing if I can't understand you.

I am "old school" debate and will judge based on the flow as well. Who makes the best and quality arguments for each issue.

NFL LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE JUDGE PARADIGM CARD

In order to assist the debaters you will be judging, please answer all of the questions accurately and thoroughly.

1. Your experience with LD debate (check all that apply):

E. Experienced LD judge

F. Former Policy debater

L. I have judged LD debate for 20+ years.

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? If I have missed arguments because of speed, then yes.

B. How important is the criterion in making your decision?

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? YES

C. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and/or major analysis of issues

2. Voting issues should be given as the student moves down the flow, at the end of the final speech, but either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are necessary to create a "bubble" of the most important arguments.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is acceptable.

D. How do you decide the winner of the round? (check the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker and the winner of key arguments in the round.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

I think it's important use evidence to support your points, but you don't need TONS of cards for evidence's sake.

F. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round.

I keep a flow until the end.

SOOOOOOO TRAD.

About me: 

*Over 28 years experience coaching and judging all events at the state and national level 

*Coached in Florida, Alabama and Texas 

*Awards:  2nd Diamond coach with NSDA, LBJ District Coach of the Year, LBJ District Communicator of the Year, Alabama Coach Of the Year

PF

*I am a flow judge BUT presentation also matters a great deal.  If I can't understand what you are saying, it is difficult for me to flow your arguments. 

*Respect in the round is essential.  I don't care how good you are if you are disrespectful to your opponents or to the judges you will not get my vote. Be professional and respectful at all times.  

*I am good with any kind of speed, but keep it clear and articulate. 

*If you do not extend properly, I will not buy any of your arguments.

*Proper extension should include tag, short summary of evidence, and impact calc.

*I expect FF and even Sums to have impact calculus (magnitude, propensity, reversibility, etc.)

*Impacts are essential.  I don't care if you don't tell me why I should 

* I prefer you being true to what public forum was designed for, however if you happen to run theory and Kritik debate I will be ok with it.  

 * The second speaking rebuttal should respond to turns placed in the first speaking rebuttal.

*Offense wins rounds, so make sure your voters are offensive.

*Please collapse or the debate will end up being a mess. If you are going for Theory make sure to delineate what you want me to do with it (drop the debater, drop the argument, etc.), stance on RVI, clear voters.

*I consider it the burden of the Kritik to provide an alt and prove its uniqueness, so I will default buy the perm even if your opponent doesn’t argue it unless uniqueness is proved.

*AGAIN, I prefer traditional PF debate, but I will and can adjust judging according to different styles of debate.

*Organization is key; make it easy for me to follow

*Words matter; word economy is essential.  Don't waste time with insignificant words and filler language that takes away from overall presentation points  

Extemporaneous Speaking

-Be strategic about your question; play to your strength and knowledge, but avoid easy questions that don't require much analysis

-It is imperative you answer the question clearly and concisely

-Clearly link evidence with rhetoric and impact

-Using variety of sources is important; I am not impressed with multiple sources if those sources don't directly link with what you are saying. Just spouting off sources is not impressive. The information actually has to say something of importance and connect.

-The more current the information, the better.

-Organization and structure is important; but add some personality and flair to make it interesting and engaging.

-Knowledge of the topic is essential; more rhetoric and logic used in your speech is more impressive than anything

-Professional presentation is incredibly important.

-Don't add humor if it is not your strength.

-Tone should fit the topic.

-DO NOT BE POLITICALLY POLARIZING. Bashing any ideology or person is not impressive and will immediately give me reason to not consider a high ranking. Be respectful always.

Congressional Debate 

• I NEED CLASH. This is congressional debate, unless you are 1st AFF Speech, you should have clash in your speech.  Bring up NEW points and please do not keep bringing up same points as other representatives. 
• When you clash be sure you mention representative's names when referring to their specific arguments. 
• Your speeches need evidence, MINIMUM, one piece of evidence per point. More is appreciated. 
• When using evidence, it should clearly link or I will not consider it. Include dates; the more current and relevant the better. 
• DO NOT read your speech; engage your audience and do this in a original, creative and respectful way.
• I do listen to your speeches and questions, so if you give clearly falsified evidence or logic I will know. Be involved and know parliamentary procedure as well.
• You are judged on the WHOLE round, not just speeches, so if you are rude or aren’t involved don't expect a good score from me.

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

Flow judge: Prefer stock issues, but only use Topicality if the Aff is truly untopical.  Generic disads had better have really great specific links.

Congress Paradigm:

I have judged congress for over two decades, even before it became a National standardized qualifying event and have advocated for it all that time because I believe it to be the best overall, well-rounded event that we offer in forensic competition.

It encompasses the benefits of acting because you are playing a role as a representative and the more you understand the motivation of your position, the greater the performance. It is one of the purest of speaking events, because a great representative is a great orator, in life and in your chamber. The writing and interpretation of legislation is at the core of the event and illustrating your deep understanding of that legislation is paramount in your performance. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a debate event, where civil clash is necessary.

All that being said, to understand how I view the event holistically, there are specific standards I prefer.

I do believe that in a three to four minute speech the speaker should get our attention in a creative way and give us a clear call for action and preview of their arguments, coming back to that AGD at the end, time permitting. Preparing us for what you are about to argue is important. There is no actual grace, so 3:08 is abusing the time of the next speaker. I prefer fewer, well developed arguments, than many blipped ones. Sources are important and both the quantity and quality of such sources, Q2, are vital. Representatives do not just rely on periodicals, but government reports, experts in the field, think-tanks, etc. These considerations are important, not just the number of sources. Consideration and knowledge of how our government actually works and the type of legislation at hand is also vital. We are debating issues present in the real world, so take that into consideration and consider what are the real-world implications to your constituents? Know and use parliamentary procedure to benefit the progress of debate; do not abuse it.

PO's are a vital part to any chamber and I look for a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure and efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance. If you have not read "Robert's Rules." it behooves you to do so, then be aware of all NSDA guidelines in adapting them. A good PO should run an efficient chamber and be pro-active in enforcing a fair chamber. Any perception of recognizing speakers unfairly will be penalized. Make sure you are clear with your procedures from the start and follow them consistently.

Overall, consider the above standards in your performance and you will do well. Remember, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are truly representing your school, your state, and your nation. We need good role models.

Policy Debate CX Paradigm:

I have judge policy for almost three decades and prefer traditional policy making focused debates with well weighed impacts.

That being said, I can handle speed, but clarity and articulation are key. I will not say clear, so if I put down my pen and you don't adjust, it is on you. If I don't flow it, it's not on the flow; I will not just read your files. This is an oral exercise in debate, so if it's important, make sure I get it.

My teams also have had great success with progressive arguments and K's, so I'm fine with it if you really know the literature and have clear links. I don't like K's, so make sure the story, links, and alternative are clear. All types of arguments are fine, as long as you know how to run them and they are relevant to your debate. I don't vote on T often, but it must be ran and answered correctly, not "they aren't topical, or "yeah, we are topical", and there should be clear in-round abuse.

Make sure there is direct clash and not just random generic arguments with weak links and no direct weighing. I love those debating actually debating case, so don't ignore it.

Probability and meaningful impacts are a must.

Be civil and debate well and every round will be fulfilling.

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 12

Years Judging: twenty-four

School Strikes: St. Croix Prep

Rounds judged this year (insert any year here): usually between 80-100

***Include me on the email chain (LD, CX)

Background:
I debated for St. Francis High School, in Minnesota, from 1989 to 1993, during which time I debated two years of CX and two years of LD. I also debated four years of CEDA debate, debating for various schools. I have been the Director of Speech and Debate at St. Croix Prep in Stillwater, Minnesota since 2013, and I have coached LD, CX, WSD, PF, BQ and all speech categories. I also teach ninth grade Ancient World Literature at St. Croix Prep.

Overall Philosophy:
I believe that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships of different arguments and/or philosophical ideas. I also believe that competitive debate is an exercise in effective rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos). With all this in mind, I love debates that involve teams that know their position in the debate and are passionate about their arguments. If one team in a debate shows that they care more about their arguments than another team, this definitely can have an impact on how I evaluate the round. I typically evaluate each team’s use of evidence, reasoning, and passion to further their arguments and clash with their opponent’s arguments, hence my previous mention of the role of the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Most importantly: Be consistent, tell a good story, and explain your arguments in the context of what has happened up to that point in the debate. Teams that just read pre-written rebuttal speeches that don't contextualize their arguments don't usually do very well in front of me.

LD/CX Evidence:
First of all, evidence is only one part of a debate. Debaters should remember that there are other aspects of debate as well, such as claims and impact analysis. If you are simply extending an author’s name in order to extend an argument, you still need to extend the claim and warrant, or I am not voting on it. I will look at evidence after the round if the evidence becomes a controversial issue in the debate, or if one team is leaning heavily on a piece of evidence for their win. With this in mind, I don’t think that enough debaters go after their opponents’ sources. However, if it is clear that the source is biased or should clearly not be considered a reliable source, I would encourage debaters to make this an issue. Also, I am not a big fan of reading more evidence in the rebuttals. Sure, there may be a necessary card or two that can be effective in the first rebuttal for each team, but I would suggest using what you already have read in constructed speeches to respond as often as possible. I often find that a 1AR that can use the evidence from the two affirmative constructive speeches should have done enough to "find a way out" of the negative block (if it wasn't in the AC speeches, then its probably too late in CX debate).

Speed:
Short Version: Be clear and intentional on your tags and author names; you can go faster on your evidence, but I should still be able to understand you. I prefer passion and intensity to speed. Most of my debaters are traditional LD debaters, so I'm not a big fan of circuit speed. Will I flow it if you are slowing for tags and authors? Sure. Will I like it, probably not s'much. In this regard, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SIGNPOST. If you just go on-case and dump a bunch of stuff on the flow, I won't do your work for you.

Long Version: Many of today’s debaters (at least circuit debaters) are not doing much that is different than what has been done in the speed category over the last twenty years. However, I do have some preferences in this regard. When you are speaking at 250+ wpm, I have difficulty distinguishing what you want me to flow versus extraneous evidence text or extemporized explanations, which invariably leads to miscommunications later on in the extension debate. One request that I have to resolve this issue is that debaters speak more articulate and “slower” in their presentation of their signposting, their claims, and their citations. This really shouldn't slow down the overall presentation of the speech by much, but it should make the presentation of those “flow-able” points more intentional. Additionally, I will not shout "clear" or "slower" if you aren't articulating your signposts, tags, and cites. An optimal speed is probably around 200-250 on average for me if you at least slow down for these three areas.

Persuasion:
As previously mentioned, evidence is only one aspect of rhetoric, and the best debaters know how to balance ethos (evidence), pathos (passion/emotion), and logos (logic/reasoning). Additionally, I feel that the most persuasive debaters are those that can do the line-by-line debating but also move the debate to the bigger picture as well.

Preferences:
While I believe, as previously stated, that competitive debate is an educational space that should allow students to explore the relationships between different arguments and/or philosophical ideas, I do feel that there should be some topical awareness in a debate. With that in mind, I would suggest that any critical affirmative arguments should be accompanied with a thoughtful explanation of why I should entertain a debate that is not related to the topic as worded in the resolution, or explain why their critical affirmative should be considered in the context of the resolution as in the direction of the resolution; otherwise, I feel like this is a tough area for me to validate, especially if I can imagine a world where the aff is just a neg kritik of affirming the resolution. I would say that my favorite debates are debates that are actually directly tied to the topic and manage to address the underlying issues inherent in the topic through a strong philosophical or political debate (I do prefer critical affs that are actually topical). However, this doesn't mean that I am partial to these arguments. I will entertain any argument, as long as the debater provides solid and supported rationale for its use in the round and its connection to the topic or the opponent’s arguments.

Cross-Examination:

I really enjoy a great cross examination, especially because it allows debaters to really show their skills when it comes to the interactive part of debate. I think that cross examination is a place that really allows the most prepared debaters to shine. Because of this, I usually determine how I am going to assign speaker points based on a debater's performance in cross-ex. So, please don't ask if you can use the rest of CX as prep. That will always be a big "No."

I am okay with tag-team cross-examination in policy debate to a degree, but I hate it when one debater is clearly the puppet and their partner is the puppet master. This becomes obvious if one debater has no clue how to answer questions posed about what they just read in the speech. That being said, I would encourage you to use tag-team cross-ex as an emergency cord, not as something that should be used frequently.

The Ballot:
Just because a debater says that an argument is a voting issue does not make it so. To make an argument into a voting issue, a debater needs to provide warrant for its impact as a voting issue. Each debater should be able to provide decision calculus that makes my job very easy for me (which, ironically, if done well by both sides, may make my job even harder). I am someone who typically votes with their flow, which makes a debater’s speed adaptability and articulation key components in my ability to make a decision in their favor. Additionally, as previously mentioned, I will take a debater’s persuasive style and passion for their arguments into account. I would say that these areas help make my decisions when the debate is very close. Lastly, as far as the “role of the ballot” is concerned, I will leave that up to the debaters to decide. If there is no “role of the ballot” argument made in the debate, I will do my best to intuit this role from your arguments and voting issues.

Policy Notes:
As has been mentioned previously, I am accepting of most arguments, as long as the debaters are able to explain the rationale behind running such an argument and the impact that the argument has on the debate. I love direct clash, since I believe that this shows a team’s level of preparedness, especially in policy debate, but I also love good critical discussions as well. Overall, I would say that the biggest issue for me is speed. Please, please, please, at the very least, make your signposting, claims, and cites audibly clear and slower than the rest of your speech. I believe this also offers you the opportunity to add emphasis to these points as well, and in so doing show the passion you have for your arguments.

LD Notes:
For me, everything in Lincoln-Douglas debate should come back to the framework debate (value/criteria). However, if a debater decides to run a policy affirmative (or counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks on the negative), then I will decide the debate accordingly. However, just because you have a plan doesn't mean that the framework debate is automatically a Utilitarianism debate. If the opposing side reads a value and criteria and makes the debate about how we are to evaluate arguments (value/criteria), then you need to be ready for this debate, since (as previously stated) this is my predisposition in LD debate. A debater could win all of their contention level arguments and still lose a debate if they cannot prove that their method for evaluating the arguments should be preferred over their opponent's method. I think that some of the best LD debaters are those that can attack criteria with supporting evidence, or they can prove how they can perm their opponent’s criteria. Ultimately, I will vote on the voting issues presented in the debate (or impact calculus if the debate becomes a Util debate), but I will consider the criteria debate first and last when making any decision. That being said, I will entertain "nontraditional" affirmatives and negative positions in a debate (Topicality, Kritiks, Theory, etc), but you need to explain its relevance to the topic and/or arguments that have already been presented in the debate.

How I vote: I want debaters to tell me why I should vote for their position over their opponent's position. If you just barf a bunch of arguments onto the flow and don't explain how I should evaluate them against what your opponents have said, then I probably won't be too keen on buying in to your "story." I'm not a fan of judge intervention, so don't leave me too much room to make my own decision.

NEW STUFF***Kritikal Arguments Continued(CX/LD):

As mentioned before, I enjoy a well-run kritikal argument on either side of a topic; however, with this in mind, I have a few significant points I would like to discuss.

First, I believe that a kritik only holds its value when maintaining all primary parts as a cohesive whole (link, impact, alternative, and alternative solvency). That being said, if you try to extend the front half of a kritik as a non-unique disad, I will be unlikely to vote for it. There is some room for methodology to become a singular issue, especially in KvK debates, but I haven't seen those as often.

Second, a Kritikal Aff should still affirm the resolution (or be very much in the direction of affirming the topic) - I am a fairly firm believer in switch-sides debate, and I want to see teams that can think of the topic from different perspectives. I am fairly easily persuaded that Non-topical K Affs are taking away ground from the negative. Also, if the neg chooses to engage in a K v K debate, there are no perms, since perms in a methods debate are super abusive.

Third, a good alternative is a necessary part of the debate, but it can hinge on what you are trying to accomplish in the debate. If you are trying to affect change in the debate space with the hope of spillover, then your alternative should reflect this specifically. If you are trying to play the hypothetical game that the policymaking affirmative is playing, then play that game but be prepared to explain specific steps to the world of the alternative and what that world will look like.

Fourth, I am most familiar with the following Ks: Cap, SetCol, Biopower, Ableism, Death Cult, Anthro, IR, Borders. However, if you can explain the kritik to me in more cogent terms, I am willing to entertain other kritiks. What this probably means is - if you are running a unique K, slow down.I don't like to feel like my brain is melting.

Prep Time: Please don't steal prep by taking extra time to assemble the doc, attach the doc, and send the doc. I will run prep until the speech doc is received by me.

ONLINE: To keep these things running smoothly, I won't disclose at the end of the round.

THEORY: DIsclosure theory in LD is a non-starter for me. I am a small school coach, so I know the argument. I just don't like it. I firmly believe that disclosure norms are net worse for small schools.

I started coaching in 2009 and have held leadership positions in my state org and/or NSDA district almost the entire time. I am a project manager and technical writer in Marketing by trade, with experience in the civil engineering and biotechnology industries. I flow with moderate detail, often digitally, with occasional eye contact.

It is okay to present a roadmap. I won't time roadmaps so long as they are limited to a few seconds/couple sentences.

Spreading serves no practical purpose, therefore, while I can often keep up, you will lose credibility and speaker’s points.

Limit your debate jargon. Leave the competitive technicalities at the door. It’s better to bring a compelling case with analysis and evidence.

Clash; don’t perseverate. You more likely to win by presenting quality evidence paired with apt analysis.

Inspire me with creativity and respect. Insults and rudeness will likely result in an automatic loss.

Regular LD/PF judge and coach. I keep a sloppy flow, so I hope your debating is organized. Signposting is important, as is identifying and winning the most important arguments in a round - especially in those last speeches. It's great that your opponent dropped your evidence/contention, now tell me why that matters - EXTEND your argument. I like a well-spoken, organized presentation. If I wanted to judge a policy round, I would be in the policy judge pool.

I've been the head Debate and Forensics coach at Shawnee Mission North High School for 12 years.

The most important thing I look for in a debate round is politeness and manners. I get extremely irritated when debaters are rude or condescending. That being said, I do not shake hands, but will gladly exchange smiles and pleasantries.

As a judge, I would describe myself as a policy maker, but I am still working on my flowing. I prefer traditional arguments over critical arguments. I prefer quality over quantity. I need you to explain clearly why each argument matters and why I should weigh one argument over another.

In general, make smart arguments, and I will listen. I follow moderate speed, unless you are unclear. If I can no longer follow, I will stop flowing. Please feel free to ask me any other questions you may have.

Background: I graduated from Theodore Roosevelt High School (IA) in 2016 and compete dfor the George Mason University Forensics Team until May 2020. During high school I competed in Extemp, OO, Public Forum, Congress, World Schools, even Interp a couple times. I prioritized Extemp 1st, Public Forum 2nd.

For Public Forum:

1) Speed/arguments: I am comfortable with decent amounts of speed, but don't sacrifice clarity and enunciation. If your speed causes you to fail to communicate an argument clearly enough for me to weigh or understand it, that's on you. I will flow arguments and details to the best of my ability, just remember not everybody's perfect. As such, I prefer arguments and warrants being fully fleshed out and explained throughout the entire round.

2) Rebuttals: I don't believe the 1st team's rebuttal has an obligation to respond to anything except the opposition's case. I do believe the 2nd team's rebuttal should begin to respond to the 1st team's rebuttal, but I won't consider rebuttal arguments dropped if untouched.

3) Sources: I am historically bad with understanding the pronunciations/spellings of names, so PLEASE enunciate names of authors clearly. Don't just extend cards, extend explanations.

4) Time: Keep your own prep time, hold each other accountable.

5) Speaker points: I choose points based on unclear speaking/argumentation, rudeness, fabricating evidence, quality of the round, etc.

6) Have fun!

I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

I am the Debate coach at Franklin HS and have coached for a lot of years. I tend to be traditional in how I coach my debaters and what I like to see in rounds. I am open to other approaches but would like to see why an argument is valid/justified-don't make assumptions. I also want the round to be an argument of the resolution. I expect there to be evidence to support your arguments. I can flow quickly but you need to be clear.

I competed in Public Forum and Radio in high school and have been coaching for 3 years, judging for 5.

Above all, please be respectful. This includes your opponents, teammate and judges.

I expect competitors to time themselves in round (IE & Debate). I can keep up with a fast paced speech but make sure that you can maintain clarity. I will flow debate rounds, so I value organization and will vote on the flow. Short taglines are very helpful for keeping track of contentions.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

Argumentation and logic are far more important to me than gamesmanship. I realize that Debate has technique and rules and conventions, but the bill of sale— and the reason I fell in love with Debate— was to teach students how to craft cohesive arguments and deliver them articulately. If your sole strategy is to exploit rules or score enough cheap points to win I will be unlikely to vote for you. This is not to say that you CAN'T do those things in order to win, it just has to also be accompanied by a real argument with a well supported case. I will always prefer the latter to the former.

If you spread, be sure you are good at it so that I can hear and understand you— my deep dark secret is that I am not great at hearing spreading, so if it's not coherent, I might miss your points. And I prefer to listen instead of reading your cards. The truth is, a lot has been written recently about the problems inherent to the gamification of debate, and I am inclined to fully agree. I would honestly like to see spreading (indeed, all forms of "they dropped x argument") be abandoned in debate in favor of something that is actually relevant to life outside of debate. But I recognize that it is, at least for now, an established norm in debate, so I will tolerate it if it is done well. But don't expect to win just because you talk fast.

A well reasoned, logical, supported argument will always win over dropped arguments.

If you run a K, it better be an extremely interesting one, or I will almost certainly vote it down. I've seen a lot of Ks come and go in my time, so I'm not going to be moved by another tired anti-debate argument, especially, lord help me, if it's a canned K you found on Open Evidence and don't actually understand. Be original, passionate, and serious if you are going to run a K.

I want to see real arguments being made in a passionate, logical, civil, and coherent manner. I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks. You can be fierce and aggressive, but attacking your opponent personally is not aggressive debate. And being passionate doesn't mean shouting (necessarily; I have seen shouting that was effective, but it's a subtle skill!). Arguments before cards, please. If your "case" is just reading a bunch of cards at me, I won't be very impressed. You need to fully and profoundly comprehend the basis of your case, create a solid argumentation framework of your own devising, and THEN use your cards to support that argument as a means of proving (or, at least, providing substantiation for) your platform. In fact, I am more likely to prefer a debater with less evidence who makes a well thought out argument over one who has an overwhelming number of cards, but who has created a less cohesive case out them, even in Policy.

We aren't here to play games. I want to see you tackling these issues for reals and using your voice to make good debate. This is practice for a new generation of young, brilliant, sharp, prepared humans to take over, and I want to see it being taken seriously.

I have been judging regularly for about 15 years; and I am in my seventh year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS in Oklahoma City. I love every single event offered for competition. They are all valid. Memes hating on particular events are lame. Follow @hcpspeechdebate on Instagram and Twitter.

LD/PFD: I prefer quality of information and sources as well as clarity and presence of speakers over speed and quantity of information and sources. The more you can tell me about the qualifications of a source, the better I can weigh them. If you give a simple (Last Name/Year) tag, you can assume I know nothing about the author. I like to see your personality as a debater and jokes/lighthearted moments are welcome as long as they are within the scope of the topic. I dislike plans and policy-style approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate; if you want to do Policy, there's a debate for that. I believe that the heart of Public Forum debate is that it should assume any judge is a lay judge and is more informal and free of debate jargon. Limit pre-case observations and don't place impossible burdens on your opponent. Be civil and professional during cross-examination or your speaker points are toast. Use cross-examination time to ask questions, not make another speech. Use your speech time and prep time! Your constructive speeches should be as close to memorized as possible. I want to see you speaking/debating, not just reading. Cases on paper vs on a laptop gain an automatic advantage. Have fun!

Big Questions: Please, please, please read the Format Manual. Then read it again. Use the Format Manual as evidence in round if you need to. Please let this thing have a chance to become its own thing before we drown it in the other debate sauces.

Policy: If I am judging round round, I apologize in advance. Something has gone awry at this tournament and I am a kind-hearted person with a semi-functioning brain that has been put in to prevent the round starting hours late. We'll make it through this together. I'm probably not gonna disclose unless tab forces me to.

Congress: Don't read word-for-word pre-written speeches. You should have an outline. Pay attention to the whole of the round, not just sitting there prepping for when you are going to talk. Keep questions concise.

World Schools: Requests for POIs should rise/raise as often as needed but don't be a pest about it. You are at the discretion of the speaker. Avoid debate jargon. Rely on reason and logic. Appeal persuasively. Prop arguments should do their best to prove the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opposition arguments should be about broad rejection of the resolution, not just finding an outlier to say that one example is representative of all.

Final Thoughts: This activity is for education. Winning and excellence should always be celebrated, but not the only goal. Remember that Words Matter and Words have Power. Respect the purpose of the Pronouns and name pronunciation options in Tabroom. The NSDA has worked hard to be inclusive. Don't abuse that. #NotGarbagePeople

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation. Focus on framework and the value. Not one to disclose.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

• I've been coaching in southeast Florida since 2000, and have had national qualifiers in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and World Schools Debate. Some have even advanced beyond prelims!

(1) Picture ... if you will ... your 93-year-old great-grandfather. In order for him to understand the words coming out of your mouth, you must speak clearly. Very clearly. I'm not 93, or your great-grandfather (or, at least, to the best of my knowledge I'm not - and if I am, why am I judging you? You're my great-grandchild! Conflict of interest!), but I weigh clarity highly. If I cannot understand you, and stop flowing (whether via old-school "putting the pen down" or new-school "no longer pounding away on my laptop keyboard"), you are probably losing the round. Badly.

(1a) My iPad tends to merge words together when I try to flow using electronic ballots. Which means I sometimes miss arguments while trying to fix the hot mess typos. Or when I look back on the round to review, there’s chunks missing. Clarity in your presentation will go a long way toward me remembering what you said and why it was important. “Speed kills” isn’t just about how you drive on the roadways. Speaking of which ...

(1b) Debate is an educational communications activity. It's about persuasion; competitors ought to hone and practice the skills that will be effective in the real world; I expect no less in a debate round. Spewing out random crap just because you think a 72nd argument will win you the round won't cut it. The ONLY spreading that matters is cream cheese on a toasted onion bagel. (Mmmmm, toasted onion bagel ... with cream cheese ... and lox ...)

But I digress.

(2) "End of the world" nuke war-type arguments don't sway me. We've somehow managed to survive the Cold War, Krushchev's shoe-banging incident, and that immature Canadian singer who makes me want to puke (and whose name I refuse to print or say).

(2a) I rarely call for cards. Like, I’ve done it maybe twice in 15+ years? Don’t expect to be the third.

(3) I prefer substance over style.

(3a) I also prefer you treat your opponent and the judge (and, in a paired event, your partner) like they are human beings. DO NOT GO DONALD TRUMP/MAGA IN A ROUND - YOU WILL LOSE POINTS, AND PROBABLY LOSE THE ROUND ... BADLY.

(4) In Lincoln Douglas Debate, I'm really old school - it's a philosophical debate, not a forum to jam statistics and facts down my throat. Notice that "OLD SCHOOL" has the initials "LD" embedded in the name. Live it; learn it; know it.

(5) I do not require or expect case disclosure, nor will I incorporate case disclosure as a reason to vote for or against a debater, or add/dock points. (This connects with my earlier "I rarely call for cards" comment.

(6) I am not a "point fairy" (earning a 30 from me is damn next to impossible) but am not overly harsh ... unless you do something reallllllllly stupid or insulting, in which case, fear my wrath! Also, I will deduct an entire point if I don't believe you are flowing the majority of the time you should be OR if you pack-up your belongings and don't take notes/look at your flow during my RFD/critique. (BTW, I rarely disclose, but I will offer analysis of things that occurred during the round.)

(7) Ben & Jerry's Cherry Garcia rocks my dirty socks. So do Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (RIP, Tom!), Monty Python, the Detroit Red Wings, and Mountain Dew. Sadly, I'm not supposed to have Ben & Jerry's or Mountain Dew anymore (damn you, Type 2 diabetes!), but such is life. Then again, we've survived that previously-referenced Canadian singer ... so far ...

This is my 13th year coaching competitive debate. I like to hear good debate. I want kids to improve and succeed in this activity. When everyone competes better, the whole activity gets better. You having a good round is my goal. If you are a new debater, this is all you need to know. For the more experienced students, read on.

Updates for 2023 season.

Ask me if you do not understand or want clarity on the below.

I won't vote for positions that are overtly harmful or advocate harm.

I am typically a tech judge, as I would like to not intervene in the round. However...

I will not accept claims that are not warranted. It is not my job to blindly accept your arguments when they are incomplete.

If you run phil arguments, I will accept your interpretation of the phil... to an extent. However, if the phil you are arguing is something way of base or you have a gross misunderstanding, I will not accept it. You should have a basic understanding of what the difference principle or categorical imperative or whatever means that actually resembles it. It's not exactly fair to your opponent that you don't know what you are actually running. It leads to too much confusion for your opponent, and I will simply default to your opponents weighing mechanism, or a standard debate weighing mechanism.

Basically, on a truth to tech scale, put me as a 2 for your phil and a 7 for everything else.

If you are going to run a K and do not have all the elements of a K, do not waste your time. I will exercise my roll of the ballot by voting for the trad debater. (If you do not understand the joke I put in the last sentence, that is your sign a K is a bad idea).

General notes

I vote on my flow, and dictate my decision based on the arguments that I am told to vote on in the round.

Asking what your opponent's evidence is does not win you any favors with me. Unless you have a good reason, something you haven't heard before, questioning the source, evidence violations, I find it detracts from the real value of this activity. Please don't do this unless it is integral to advancing your arguments. To be clear, I totally respect and endorse asking to see your opponent's evidence IF necessary. I do not favor or ever vote for arguments based on "my opponent doesn't have evidence" when my flow shows otherwise.

I like impacts. I like links.

You should articulate your arguments clearly because even if I know the content and literature, I will not do the work of filling in the gaps for you.

I prefer students advance arguments. Arguments can and should evolve.

Please tell me what I should write on my ballot. Good chance if you do, I will write it.

Don't yell at me please. I am a person. Ask yourself, would like me to yell at you for 45 minutes? No, you do not. Make a different choice. I will verbally tell you to knock it off.

I call evidence. Please have evidence in round according to the rules. There is a good chance, especially in D1, I am calling it. It doesn't mean you did something wrong, it most likely means there is something I want to confirm. This specifically comes up when you are paraphrasing your evidence, and your paraphrasing changes to the point it doesn't reflect the initial read. I am just trying to be a good judge for you.

PF debate

I am pretty traditional in my sense of what PF should be and look like. I believe in the concept a lay judge should be able to judge the round.

Just because the summary is 3 minutes, doesn't mean it is a 2nd rebuttal. A summary during that time would be cool.

I vote on offense.

LD debate

I strongly advise carrying your framework with you through the round. It weighs heavily for me in voting. Framework is one of the strongest voting areas for me in LD. If you lose it, I am not sure how you win the ballot. I literally vote on values.

Criterion clash isn't a "thing". Stop trying to make criterion clash happen. You clash values, you argue criterions.

I am well read on popular philosophies used in more traditional circuits of LD debate. I prefer phil. heavy rounds.

I have judged debate since 1988. I started programs in San Jose, San Francisco, and Portland. I have judged every form at the state and national level. I am pretty tabula rasa. In fact, one reason we brought Parli into the state of Oregon in 1997 was that we were looking for something less protocol driven and less linguistically incestuous. Policy and LD seemed to be exclusive to those who could master lingo. With Parli, we had a common knowledge street fight. So, I am open to your interpretation of how the round should be judged. Incorporate anything from your tool box: weighing mechanism, topicality challenge, counterplan, kritik, et al.

But, I still have to understand what you are saying and why. . .and so does your opponent. (Hey, now this guy seems like a communication judge. Eye roll.) I will not judge on debate tactic alone; I am not a Game Player . . . though I did play PacMan once in 1981.

Next, I am a teacher. This is an educational activity. Students should be working on transferrable skills--what are we doing in this debate chamber that we will use outside of the room in a classroom or a college campus or life? So, no speed. I will call "clear" to help you adapt to the room. And, while I am open to creative opposition to premises and other kritiks for the round, I won't abide by arguments that degrade a people or an individual. I was stunned when a debater once tried to argue that Internment was not that bad. I do not think they believed this in their heart; how could we have come to a spot in this educational event where this young person felt that this was a viable argument?

Unique note to Public Forum. Regarding a plan in PoFo. I align with Oregon rules. Pro can have a generalized idea of how we might put a policy into practice. They don't need all seven planks of a plan as in Policy. Still, Con can certainly ask questions about parts of the plan such as, " how would we afford this change?"

Final note on PoFo. When the NSDA (then, the NFL) brought in Public Forum Debate, it intended to haveonly lay judges. No coaches, former debaters or even long time parent judges. This debate should be understood by people outside our speech universe. I honor that.

Final note on LD. One of my debaters observed that "all debate forms gravitate to Policy Debate." We see spreading too PoFo and counter plans LD. I believe that each form should offer students a different learning experience. Therefore, for LD, I look to the Values debate. What world are you asking me to uphold and how is it tied to the topic and how will we know it is being upheld (the criterion) in the future. Finally, (no.really. This is the end of this paradigm.. . .most likely) I don't buy Morality as a value.

Let us have fun and walk out of the room with something to think about... and our limbs in tact! Con carino, Gonzo

Overall:

Speed (Spreading): Don't spread if you can't do it properly! Speak quickly but if I can't understand you...I'm out.

Flow (Prep Time): USE YOUR PREP TIME! It is there for a reason. If you drop something or your argument isn't well rounded and you didn't use your prep time....hmmm...see the problem here?

Style (Interaction): I prefer the debaters to not get nasty towards each other but I also want you to stand your ground. There is a style to doing this without sounding like a teenager who isn't getting their way.

Arguments: You have your case...present it. Ask the questions that are needed.

I am a fairly quick thinker so if you miss some of the lingo that's okay but be sure I can pick out what is what in your argument. It should be well developed and structured so that both the judge and opponent(s) can flow your case.

LD: I prefer a round that is both debaters giving their cases at their best. Don't look for what I "prefer" or care about seeing; just give me what you've got and leave it all in the room.

Policy: I think my policy paradigm is the same as my LD. I love a good cross; it's there to ask as many questions as you can and get as much info as you can...be aggressive here if you have to.

sarah.gonzales@rcisd.org

Hi there! If you're reading this, it hasn't been updated since I stepped away from debate professionally. As a debater, I participated in just about every format of debate and read almost every argument I could find. As a judge, and coach, I encouraged debaters to do the same. Please ask any and all questions you might have - if I'm judging your round I'm happy to be there! :)

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

For Debate Rounds:

I enjoy flowing rounds. I expect debaters to speak to be understood and to forward their arguments with meaningful warrants AND impacts. I caution the use of spreading. I should not have to read your case in order to be able to track your arguments if you are speaking to be understood. Evidence that is left to speak for itself carries less weight for arguments than evidence that is contextualized and explained how it is being used within the argument as well as the round. I focus on how well debaters utilize Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Your delivery (respect for opponents, and connection with the judge) and use of evidence fits under ethos. Your pathos increases when you are able to explain how what you are arguing matters--don't just state that it does. Logos implies logic, so make sure that you make sense. Finally, don't hide and gloss over your definition of the resolution. I need to know what you are debating. Regarding speaker points: speakers who are respectful during CX to their opponent, who roadmap and signpost their speeches, and who speak to be understood are awarded higher points.

For Individual Speaking Events:

Utilize your voice and body to convey your message to the judge. Contextualize your sources as you cite them orally. Roadmap and signpost your presentations. Regardless of the event, make your topic matter for your audience. 

What used to exist in this text box was a principled stand on my beliefs about what debate ought and ought not to be, what good argumentation looks like, and how the value of this activity as an educational exercise is of paramount importance. Then, after fourteen years involved in debate, I finally learned - debaters will do what they want regardless of my paradigm. So now, rather than list the intricacies of how to win my ballot, I have finally reached a position where I grudgingly accept the fact that debate has changed - I'm not sure for the better - but it's changed nonetheless. As a result, I am open to nearly any and all forms of argumentation, but I will die on the following three hills:

1) Do not spread. Seriously, don't do it. I refuse to move off the concept of debate as an educational activity which develops the rhetorical skills of students. At no point in your life will you need to employ the skill of cramming as many words as possible into a scarce amount of time in order to obfuscate the truth and confuse your listener - unless of course you plan to run for a major elected office. The day I judge a tournament and run into spreading in every single round is the day I leave the speech and debate world forever.

2) The round is won on the strength of your arguments as opposed to the strength of your evidence. Anyone can find any information out there to confirm a perspective. I will not vote for you because your evidence is three months more recent or because your survey sampled ten more people than your opponent's. Please don't get bogged down in the evidence clash - it's boring.

3) Give me specific reasons to vote for you. Literally number them. At the end of a round, judges are expected to render a quick decision with reasons for that decision and turn that reasoning over to Tab to keep the proverbial trains moving. It's a lot easier to do my job when you isolate the key issues in a round and explain why you've won them. Crystallize the debate down to its most essential elements and narrow my view of the round to what matters.

Other than that - it's 2020. In a weird year, feel free to run some weird arguments.

About me: Former high school policy debater and college parli/BP debater. I have coached every debate event and most speech events as well. I have coached students to state championships and elimination rounds at nationals. I teach English, public speaking, and debate.

Note: Policy is its own event. It, and its argumentation style have their place; however, not every other event needs to be Policy. I prefer to watch and engage in other styles of debate when judging those events and engage in Policy when I am judging Policy.

Likes:
1) Clear argument structure and warranting. I really like when not only is a position well supported by evidence but also when a debater puts in the work to logical justify and explain their argument/impact clearly (more so on the argument front). Being able to logically justify your position past "this is what x expert says..." illustrates critical thinking which really makes this activity a joy to watch. This often means fewer more substantive arguments.

2) Debates about framework. I actually quite like meta-debate; however, I have a pretty high threshold for topicality and kritiks. My biggest issue with both of those positions is that they often ignore why they should matter to the listener. The impact is too nebulous like does my ballot actually prevent abusive AFFs? Alternatively, impacts are often glossed over. If you're taking time to impact your K on ecological destruction and your take is that's bad...no duh. Give sophisticated positions the time they need. I extend this beyond just policy, though. I quite like discussions on competing weighing mechanisms, and my RFDs often include some discuss about how debaters did/did not do on this topic. This should be done with care to ensure you are meeting the threshold of #1, though. I like whenever a debater can convince me to vote on something that isn't cost-benefit-analysis.

3)Voter issues. I like this first of all because I think they demonstrate a debater's overall understanding of the round. Being able to clearly articulate which positions you are winning, which you are losing, and how they all match up is probably one of the most important logical skills this activity develops. I am rarely convinced by claims one side of the debate has won everything (in many years of judging I have maybe seen it once or twice). Next, voter issues nicely bring closure to the round. I don't think it is ever wise to put the expectation of completely sorting out impact calculus to a judge. Tell me what issues mattered and how you want them weighed.

Dislikes:
1) Speed. The long and short of it is as follows: I believe this is an educational communication event, and I believe that endeavor is harmed by going too fast. I think part of being an effective communicator demands being able to speak to a broad general audience and paying attention to your audience. You much better hone these skills by seeking more clarity in your public speaking style. I have yet to see a "fast" debate that meets this threshold, and you are welcome to try to defy my expectations, but be aware that is what you are doing. If I put down my pen and stare at you for more than 3-5 seconds, you've crossed that speed threshold, and I am not flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that are not on my flow.

2)"What they said doesn't..." Debates/Arguments. I really detest arguments that devolve into a giant game of each side claiming what the other side said isn't true or doesn't work that way. Firstly, it is a relatively weak argument, but more importantly, these arguments often fail to address the issue of the debate in favor of hoping I agree with your position. I want arguments warranted out and clash to have an equal amount of thought put into it. I ultimately find these arguments reductive, and without a good warrant and analysis, you are not winning my vote here.

3)Rude people. I like to think that we're all good people and that the kids I see in round will go on to do awesome things. I don't enjoy having to sit down for an hour or more and listen to two sides scream at each other. I don't enjoy seeing people being smarmy to one other. I don't like jerks. I come here to see the awesome things kids can think of, and nothing takes me out of that frame of mind faster than seeing people be jerks. If I think you cross a line, it will most likely be reflected in speaker points. If I think you jumped over the line and are making a mad dash toward the next one, I may even consider voting against you. The latter is rare, but I have done it a couple of times. Please don't be that person.

Your arguments have to make sense. If you think your argument is stronger, show me why. Show me why your evidence or logic is better don't just tell me it is. I don't want two ships passing in the night. I want well organized clash. You have to flow drops. If your opponent drops and you don't flow and point it out, I won't consider it. You need to manage and extend arguments effectively throughout the debate. Don't drop an argument early and then try to extend it later. Ethics are important. Communication is very important. Especially in a digital debate. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I'm fine with speed if all competitors in the round are fine with speed. I don't vote on plans/counterplans in PF. All other argumentation is up to you.

If there is an email chain, please include me in the chain.

rpjohn14@asu.edu

I am the Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Laurel School (OH) and have been involved with interscholastic speech and debate competition since 2006.

I expect all speakers and debaters to be articulate and fluid in their delivery so any audience member can understand what is being said and why. I am a traditional judge and want to hear your arguments without spreading. I prefer that you fully explain evidence and its role in the round. Please don't just extend taglines/card authors -- flesh out the narrative, and extend the "how" & "why" as well. Please do not use debate jargon to make your case. I look for warranted arguments, clean logic, and clear voting issues.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Debaters are frequently disadvantaged because of biases - conscious or unconscious - held by the judge. I am well aware that male-identified debaters have been historically advantaged due to socially-constructed expectations around gendered speech. Female-identified debaters are often criticized and penalized for behaviors that their male-identified opponents get away with. This is not at all just, and I am deeply committed to increasing equity in debate. Please know that I will judge the substance of the debate and will work hard to eliminate any biases I hold from my own judging.

I am a college professor (media and journalism studies) at Cuyahoga Community College. BA Wabash College. MA The Ohio State University. Ed.S. Kent State University. I've been coaching HS debate and speech since 2008 at two Ohio high schools, and in both my first students to "break" beyond preliminaries in State Finals did so in Congressional Debate.

CONGESS

Long before beginning my coaching career I worked in the U.S. Senate, where I ghost-wrote numerous speeches and op-eds for my Senator. I became a HS debate/speech coach in 2008. In that time, I've coached dozens of Congress competitors, including at least a dozen to Ohio's OSDA State Finals, and eight to the NSDA National Tournament. I've judged HS/MS Congress at Nationals on and off going back to 2016 (Salt Lake City).

In judging, I use the NSDA rubric and also look hard for what I call "excellent sewing." If you employ a strong opening story or example, make sure the "threads" of it extend well to your key points, the warrants you utilize, and the impacts you present. Stitch it perfectly! If you are the 4th, 5th, or 6th speaker for or against a bill, I expect clash and/or new insight in what you say. If you simply repeat previous warrants and use already-cited warrants, don't expect a high score. If you crystallize, make 100% sure you correctly cover points and speakers for both sides. If you create clash and/or provide a fresh approach for or against a bill/resolution, you have much better odds of a top score.

I've judged Congress many times and places than I can remember, and served as a parliamentarian at NSDA Nationals and at Princeton. Won't bore you with the specifics.

PUBLIC FORUM

A + R + E = decisions.

A = Argumentation. How well are developed is your constructive?

R = Rebuild/Refute -- How well do you attack your opponent's constructive? Using what? How well to you rebuild your own arguments (when attacked)? With what?

E = Evidence. -- Looking at quality, quantity, and how well you use the evidence yo present.

Speak as fast or as slow as you like. As long as I can understand your arguments, you're fine.

Cross X -- be purposeful, and make your purpose plain as the round develops.

Summary -- only new arguments I'll entertain is if the previous speaker (other side) presented something which needs an answer or a refutation.

Final focus -- never introduce new arguments.

Policy Paradigm

Ultimately, I judge the round how it is debated. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.

First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.

Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.

I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.

Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.

Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.

Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.

Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.

As a general note, I hate tagline extensions. Please do more than just "extend ______ argument," even if it was dropped. Likewise, make sure you extend everything you need to. Blowing up an advantage in the 2AR doesn't really get you anything if the 1AR didn't even talk about that advantage.

Any questions, please ask.

LD Paradigm

I am most familiar with a traditional LD case structure (value, criterion, contentions), but if you want to go a different route, I'll listen. I'll vote on any argument that is well-warranted and impacted out.

Debate is an exchange of ideas through logical communication. All debate should be easy and logical to follow. Telling a clear story through logic and evidence to support that logic. Anyone should be able to watch and flow a long with the debate.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

Great communication and good form are important to me.

I do not mind speed but do not spread if you are not adept at it; I need to understand more than be impressed by your words per minute. Speaking of understanding, please make it a focus to know the correct pronunciation of difficult terms and words that are pertinent to your arguments. Thanks.

Topicality is underrated. I find it to be the bedrock of your argument. I also think impacts are important. If you bring up tools to make your opponents’ position weak such as disads, CP, etc., please be prepared to support these in detail, and develop your them to expose the weakness of your opposition.

A great k is okay but people are in love with using ks without knowing how. Don't be that person. Also, provide a good roadmap before your speech, and above all, at the end of your portion of the round, please be clear on why the judge should decide FOR you or AGAINST your opponent.

I strive to be impartial and open because I am a high school debate and forensics coach, and that’s how I want my students to be judged. However, I do not appreciate debaters who are unkind to lay judges; tournaments would be very hard to hold without them, and they are some debater's mother, grandfather, family friend, etc. Disdaining them is inappropriate.

Try hard, be polite, use language that is academic, appropriate, and unbiased; don’t attack your opponents themselves, but rather their arguments on the basis of logic, evidence, organization, and knowledge…and say thanks after to all in the room.

This paradigm is not earth-shattering, but simply common sense points to follow, and good luck to all.

Background

I am a debate coach and familiar with all formats of debate. Primary focus is now World Schools Debate. I have coached teams and competed on the international level with those teams so I am well versed in WSD. Embrace the format of this special debate. I don't enjoy seeing a PF attempt in this format-make the adjustment and be true to the form as intended for it to be.

Judging Paradigm

I'm a policy-maker at heart. Decisions will be flow-based focusing on impact calculus stemming from the question of the resolution.

If I'm not flowing, I'm either not buying your current argument or not appreciating your speaking style.

Play offense and defense; I should have a reason to vote FOR you, not just a reason to vote AGAINST your opponents.

WSD-Show me what the world looks like on your side of the motion-stay true to the heart of the motion

Style:

Manners

Yes, manners. Good debate is not rude or snarky. Do not let your primal need to savagely destroy your opponent cost you the round. Win with style and grace or find yourself on the wrong side of the ballot. You've been warned.

WSD- I love the passion and big picture

Speed

Speed is not a problem with me, it's probably more of a problem with you. Public Forum is not "Policy-lite" and should not be treated as such as far as speaking style goes. The beauty of PF should not get lost in trying to cram in arguments. Many times spreading in PF just tells me you need work in word economy and style. Feel free to speak at an elevated conversational rate displaying a rapid clarity that enhances the argument.

WSD-Don't even think about speed!

Organization

Speeches should follow the predetermined road map and should be signposted along the way. If you want an argument on the flow, you should tell me exactly where to flow it. If I have to make that decision for you, I may not flow it at all. I prefer your arguments and your refutation clearly enumerated; "We have 3 answers to this..."

Framework and Definitions

The framework (and definitions debate) should be an umbrella of fairness to both sides. The framework debate is important but should not be over-limiting to your opponents. I will not say "impossible" here, but winning the round without winning your framework is highly improbable. I am open to interpretation of the resolution, but if that interpretation is overtly abusive by design, I will not vote for your framework. That said, I caution your use of abuse stories. Most abuse arguments come off like whining, and nobody likes that. If a framework and accompanying definition is harmful to the debate, clearly spell out the impacts in those terms. Otherwise, provide the necessary (and much welcomed) clash. Most definition debates are extremely boring and a waste of time.

Final Focus

Your FF should effectively write the RFD for me. Anything less is leaving it up to my interpretation.

Good luck, and thank you for being a debater.

Public Forum Paradigm

Defense needs to be in summary. If it's not in summary, I'm less likely to consider it in final focus.

Time allocation is also super important. There needs to be a balance between explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts.

Don't be offensive.

I am very much a traditional Debate judge. That means I prefer a more communicative mode of debate. If your speed limits communication, it will be reflected on the ballot. In LD and PF, I prefer no kritiks, plans, or DAs.

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying.Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation.

I have experience with Public Forum, Congress, Extemp, and LD.

I run an AI startup called Pickaxe.

Surprise me with your arguments. Get creative. Go for it.

Head Coach --- Goddard High School

Former Head Coach --- Bishop Carroll Catholic High School

15 years experience

> > > I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. Make the round interesting, clash with your opponents, and tell me why you win in the rebuttals. < < <

AFF Cases

You must defend an advocacy. I strongly prefer policy cases, but I am not opposed to a K aff that is run well. Don't waste my time with ridiculous / meme affs... you may argue these "for the lolz," but you'll be taking the L.

On-Case and Impacts

I love on-case arguments and weigh them highly. Impact calculus is always appreciated. My favorite stock issue is inherency, and I consider it an independent voter.

DAs

I don’t weigh generic arguments. You need to win the link or argue something different. Uniqueness does not mean there is a risk of a link.

CPs

I love them, but CPs must be competitive, and you must convince me of your net benefits.

T

Topicality ensures fairness and is an independent voter; however, I don’t mind effects topical plans that can be defended. Make sure the abuse story is explained well.

Ks / Theory

Not my favorite arguments, but you can win them if you convince me to accept the world of the alt.

Delivery

Good presentation beats speed any day. This is a public speaking activity, not a race. I understand faster cards, but your tags and analytics should be enjoyable.

Evidence

Add me to the chain: immagivethe3nr@gmail.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stealing evidence, clipping cards, playing on your phone, and other forms of unsportsmanlike conduct all result in an auto-loss.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

T.K.O (Technical Knockout) Policy:

If at any point before the end of the debate you think you've won beyond a reasonable doubt (if they drop T, double turn themselves, are proven to be non-inherent, makes a strategic error that is unfixable, etc.) you can stop the debate by invoking a TKO. I'll then evaluate the claim that the team invoking the TKO makes. If that team is right, they'll win on a 3 with 30s. The other team will lose on a 7 with 20s. If a team TKOs and is wrong (does not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold), they lose on a 7 with 20s.

Jan 18 2025

I will not base my decision on the flow of the debate if the debaters dont flow.

Love to be on the chain.... sfadebate@gmail.com

LD---TOC---2024

I'm a traditional leaning policy judge – No particular like/dislike for the Value/Criterion or Meta-Ethic/Standard structure for framework just make sure everything is substantially justified, not tons of blippy framework justifications.

Disads — Link extensions should be thorough, not just two words with an author name. I'm a sucker for good uniqueness debates, especially on a topic where things are changing constantly.

Counterplans — Counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive but I'm willing to change my mind if competition evidence is solid. I love impact/nb turns and think they should be utilized more. Not a fan of ‘intrinsic perms’.

Kritiks — I default to letting the aff weigh case but i'm more than willing to change my mind given a good framework/link push from the negative. I’m most familiar with: Cap, Biopolitics, Nietzsche, and Security. I'm fine voting for other lit bases but my threshold is higher especially for IdPol, SetCol, and High Theory. Not a fan of Baudrillard but will vote on it if it is done well.

K Affs — I'm probably 40/60 on T. If a K aff has a well explained thesis and good answers to presumption I am more than willing to vote on it. A trend I see is many negative debaters blankly extending fairness and clash arguments without substantial policymaking/debate good evidence. I default to thinking debate and policymaking are good but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise absent a compelling 2NR.

Topicality — Big fan of good T debates, really dislike bad T debates. I don't like when teams read contradictory interps in the 1NC, you should have good T evidence, and I like a good caselist. Preferably the whole 2NR is T.

Theory — Not a fan of frivolous shells but i'm willing to be convinced on any interp given a good explanation of the abuse story. I default to In-round-abuse, reasonability, and have a high threshold for RVIs.

Phil — As an Ex-Policy Debater, my knowledge here is very limited. I'm willing to vote on it if it's very well warranted and clearly winning on the flow. But in a relatively equal debate I think I will always default to Util.

Tricks — Don't

edited for LD 2022-3

I have not judged a lot of LD recently. I more than likely have not heard the authors you are talking about please make sure you explain them along with your line by line. Long overviews are kind of silly and argumentation on the line by line is a better place for things Overview doesn't mean I will automatically put your overview to it. If you run tricks I am really not your judge. I think they are silly and will probably not vote for them. I have a high threshold for voting on theory arguments either way.

edited for Congress

Speak clearly and passionately. I hate rehash, so if you bring in new evidence and clash you will go farther in the round than having a structured speech halfway to late in debate. I appreciate speakers that keep the judges and audience engaged, so vocal patterns and eye contact matter. The most important thing to me is accurate and well developed arguments and thoughtful questions. For presiding officer: run a tight ship. Be quick, efficient, fair, and keep accurate precedents and recency. This is congressional debate, not congressional speech giving, so having healthy debate and competition is necessary. Being disrespectful in round will get you no where with me, so make sure to respect everyone in the room at all times.

Edited 20-21

Don't ask about speaks you should be more concerned with how to do better in the future. If you ask I will go back and dock your speaks at least 2 points.

Edited for WSD Nats 2020

Examples of your arguments will be infinitely more persuasive than analogies. Please weigh your arguments as it is appropriate. Be nice, there is a difference between arrogance and excellence

Edited for PF 2018-9

I have been judging for 20 years any numerous debate events. Please be clear; the better your internal link chain the better you will do. I am not a big fan of evidence paraphrasing. I would rather hear the authors words not your interpretation of them. Make sure you do more than weighing in the last two speeches. Please make comparison in your arguments and evidence. Dont go for everything. I usually live in an offense defense world there is almost always some risk of a link. Be nice if you dont it will affect your speaks

Edited for 2014-15 Topic
I will listen to just about any debate but if there isnt any articulation of what is happening and what jargon means then I will probably ignore your arguments. You can yell at me but I warned you. I am old and crotchety and I shouldn't have to work that hard.

CXphilosophy = As a preface to the picky stuff, I'd like to make a few more general comments first. To begin with, I will listen to just about any debate there is out there. I enjoy both policy and kritik debates. I find value in both styles of debate, and I am willing to adapt to that style. Second, have fun. If you're bored, I'm probably real bored. So enjoy yourself. Third, I'm ok with fast debates. It would be rare for you to completely lose me, however, you spew 5 minutes of blocks on theorical arguments I wont have the warrants down on paper and it will probably not be good for you when you ask me to vote on it. There is one thing I consider mandatory: Be Clear. As a luxury: try to slow down just a bit on a big analytical debate to give me pen time. Evidence analysis is your job, and it puts me in a weird situation to articulate things for you. I will read evidence after many rounds, just to make sure I know which are the most important so I can prioritize. Too many teams can't dissect the Mead card, but an impact takeout is just that. But please do it all the way- explain why these arguments aren't true or do not explain the current situation. Now the picky stuff:

Affs I prefer affs with plan texts. If you are running a critical aff please make sure I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. Using the jargon of your authors without explaining what you are doing won't help me vote for you.

Topicality and Theory- Although I certainly believe in the value of both and that it has merit, I am frustrated with teams who refuse to go for anything else. To me, Topicality is a check on the fringe, however to win a procedural argument in front of me you need specific in round abuse and I want you to figure out how this translates into me voting for you. Although I feel that scenarios of potential abuse are usually not true, I will vote for it if it is a conceded or hardly argued framework or if you can describe exactly how a topic or debate round would look like under your interpretation and why you have any right to those arguments. I believe in the common law tradition of innocence until proven guilty: My bias is to err Aff on T and Negative on Theory, until persuaded otherwise.

Disads- I think that the link debate is really the most significant. Im usually willing to grant negative teams a risk of an impact should they win a link, but much more demanding linkwise. I think uniqueness is important but Im rarely a stickler for dates, within reason- if the warrants are there that's all you need. Negatives should do their best to provide some story which places the affirmative in the context of their disads. They often get away with overly generic arguments. Im not dissing them- Reading the Ornstein card is sweet- but extrapolate the specifics out of that for the plan, rather than leaving it vague.

Counterplans- The most underrated argument in debate. Many debaters don't know the strategic gold these arguments are. Most affirmatives get stuck making terrible permutations, which is good if you neg. If you are aff in this debate and there is a CP, make a worthwhile permutation, not just "Do Both" That has very little meaning. Solvency debates are tricky. I need the aff team to quantify a solvency deficit and debate the warrants to each actor, the degree and necessity of consultation, etc.

Kritiks- On the aff, taking care of the framework is an obvious must. You just need good defense to the Alternative- other than that, see the disad comments about Link debates. Negatives, I'd like so practical application of the link and alternative articulated. What does it mean to say that the aff is "biopolitical" or "capitalist"? A discussion of the aff's place within those systems is important. Second, some judges are picky about "rethink" alternatives- Im really not provided you can describe a way that it could be implemented. Can only policymakers change? how might social movements form as a result of this? I generally think its false and strategically bad to leave it at "the people in this debate"- find a way to get something changed. I will also admit that at the time being, Im not as well read as I should be. I'm also a teacher so I've had other priorities as far as literature goes. Don't assume I've read the authors you have.

I'll flow the round and won't vote for any argument I don't understand.

I have been judging WSD for 10 years at the National level and have had students on the USA World School Debate travel team. I love it!

When judging a WSD round I am looking for students to lean into the WSD model. Bring in the skills and tools you have from any other debate or speaking event and using it to as a scaffold to build and grow in this new format. Using things like taglines, narrative, and conversational speed lead to a thorough and enjoyable debate. Use the POI structure and engage with clean clash in the round. Humanize the motion and really weigh those principals and pragmatics in the round.

I will provide you will plenty of clear feedback and suggestions. Please note, I do remember the rules of how WSD is supposed to work - you do not need to cite them in the round for me.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: angelica.mercado-ford@k12.sd.us

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

In High School I competed in poetry and extemp. I dabbled in Debate in college for a year and I fell in love with debate. I graduated from West Texas State University with a degree in Speech Communication and Theater Education. I coached and judged Speech and Debate events in Texas in the UIL circuit for 10 years. I judged events for a homeschool/private school group in Huntsville for 2 years. I have coached and judged in the NSDA circuit for 3 years.

1. I am NOT a fan of SPREADING and if you speak so fast that I am unable to flow your arguments, I will put my pen down and I can no longer judge you. Spreading is unnecessary for a well-crafted case.

2. EVIDENCE is very important, and it needs to back up the case you are presenting. I am not opposed to you doing this pragmatically, and I enjoy when you can back this up with real world examples.

3. I will judge this case on your use of evidence, direct clash and speaking style. Did you prove your case, did you present the best case, did you attack your opponent’s case?

World Schools Debate Tournament Paradigm:

I am a middle school public speaking/debate teacher and a debate contributor. Prior to teaching, I was an AmeriCorps VISTA/Coordinator for CASE Debates, helping low income, at-risk high school students gain access to competitive debate activities. Many of the students I served were World Schools Debaters.

In college, I was an LD debater but when I moved to Houston in 2018, I was introduced to the wonderful world of World Schools Debate and I've been HOOKED ever since! I judged, taught, mentored, and created material for WSD.

My Debate Pref:

The three criteria used to evaluate a WS Debate round: Content - 40%, Style - 40%, Strategy - 20%

No Spreading: WSD is NOT LD or Policy therefore, I expect your speaking style to sound Natural. Please do not use a lot of debate jargon especially as it relates to other debate formats!

Road Maps: I appreciate road maps, speakers should clearly state what points they will be making. I rely on my flow, so please make my job easy.

POI's: I appreciate strong POI's but please do not use POI's as a weapon. Also, when asking for POI's, don't be disruptive, wave or raise your hand. No verbal POI's are allowed.

Reply Speeches: While every speech in round is important, the reply speeches are very important to me because this is where I see where the debate started and where it ends. CRYSTALLIZE this portion of the speech!

No personal Attacks: Refrain from personal, racist, sexist, homophobic and ad hominem attacks. Remember, you are debating the persons position/arguments NOT the person!

Montana is a traditional debate style. Therefore, your speed and K's will likely not be effective with me. I prefer real arguments on the topic to theories and games. I generally default to stock issues and policy making so keeping things grounded in real world is key. The topic is given for a reason and I want to hear arguments and plans about the topic.

Decorum matters. Do not treat the debate space as a place to act unprofessionally and attack your opponents just because they say something you don't like. If you claim debate is abusive and then proceed to degrade and abuse your opponents you will lose. I won't vote for K's on words, pronouns, etc.

I will listen to your style and do my best to adapt and be open minded but things that are far off topic, too rooted in just philosophy with no real world impacts will likely not work. If you cannot explain your arguments or your K in your own words dont run it. Speed is only effective so long as you are clear and understandable. If I cant understand the argument it doesnt get flowed. I dont have the evidence in front of me so spread at your own risk. Remember debate is about effective communication more than anything.

Overall, clash is key. Respond to your opponents arguments. Debate the arguments and stay grounded in reality. You can claim all the terminal impacts you want but logic and analysis are likely to shoot those links down with empiric/uniqueness alone.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

Please add me on the email chain: desereadebates@gmail.com

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case- that's fine, just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent. Please do not run arguments that are harmful to any identities (anti arguments); debate should be a safe space to exchange ideas and engage in public discourse.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

I am looking for a balance between quality of the speech itself and your delivery.

For the speech:

-Creativity- please bring your own personality into these speeches--begin with an interesting hook, use metaphors, and make your argument engaging

- Clear reasoning and argumentation--show Claim Vs Warrant Vs Impact

-Organization-sign post when possible and with your conclusion, highlight your key contentions

- Demonstrate research! Show that you have investigated this topic so that you can speak authoritatively and show clear evidence

- Be polite and demonstrate respect when addressesing the other competitors--don't be rude or condescending

-Context--I like to see that you are listening to other speakers, so you gain points with me by referencing previous arguments to build your case as well as rebutting previous arguments to strengthen your case

On Delivery:

- Speed for the sake of speed is big no. If your audience can't follow what you're saying, the impact of your speech is lost.

- Speak with energy and passion that shows your engagement with the topic.

-Show good eye-contact

- Speak clearly with a confident volume and avoid filler words

Have fun! Enjoy the process and really engage as a creative participant.

Congress:

I enjoy clash- reference other competitors by name in your speeches if you agree with them or want to make direct refutations against their arguments.

Try to avoid rehashing the same arguments in several speeches; continue the analysis of points, don't just let them stagnate. Later speeches that don't provide anything thoughtful or insightful to the topic at hand will not be scored as highly as fresh speeches.

Ask questions and otherwise participate in chamber. If you go up, give a speech, and do nothing else for the rest of the 2-3 hours, you're not going to rank.

POs, keep the chamber running smoothly and try to avoid making mistakes in procedure. I won't count a few simple errors against you, but if it's clear you don't know what you're doing and/or aren't making a genuine attempt to run the chamber well, you're not going to score highly.

LD:

Your Value and Criterion framework must be standing at the end of the round. Everything else is secondary to V/C, and my win will go to whoever was best able to support the ideals presented in that framework. Ks and the like must be explained thoroughly and should still tell me why the opponent's V/C are irrelevant to the matter at hand, otherwise it simply sounds like a complaint with no basis.

Impacts are the next most important thing I consider after V/C solidity. Whoever can prove that their impacts are greater in the case of a V/C tie will win.

No spreading- Lincoln and Douglas didn't spread, neither should you. I also prefer more traditional resolution debate, but if you choose to go down a more progressive route then make sure that what you're saying makes sense, as mentioned earlier.

Evidence of course is preferred, but if something makes more sense through the use of anecdotes, analogies, and/or metaphors, I will still consider those because of the philosophical nature of LD.

Make sure you don't go off on weird tangents without explaining to me how you got there. Show me points A, B, C, and D in your logic; don't just jump from A to D and expect me to keep up.

PFD:

No spreading. I know PFD times are shorter than other debates, but the point is to crystallize the most important things to talk about in the context of the resolution, not fire off as many arguments as possible to leave your opponents scrambling. That's not conducive to a Public Forum.

Make your lines of argumentation clear; don't jump from point A to D without also showing me the intermediate steps of B and C. Same thing with impacts, which are a key voting factor for me.

I don't flow crossfire, so if you want to capitalize on points made during crossfire make sure to actually mention them in your next set of speeches or else they'll be lost and not counted in or against your favor. Try to avoid becoming too aggressive with each other during crossfire since that's not the point; speaks will drop for both teams, but especially for the instigators.

WSD:

Absolutely no spreading! This is a conversational debate; if you wouldn't use your rate of speed to talk to a friend, don't use it to deliver a speech to me.

Impacts are super important to me. Quantify your arguments and tell me why I should care about the issues at hand. Along the same vein, don't just immediately jump from Point A to Point D in your analysis- show me logically how you get there by explaining A, B, C, D, etc.

Excessive rudeness (belittling your opponents, ad hominem attacks, etc.) will result in the obliteration of your style points. Keep it professional.

Considering how it's World Schools Debate, I'd like to see a variety of evidence from around the globe if the topic allows for it.

I'm not super familiar with a lot of debate jargon used nowadays, so if possible, please explain it in layman's terms.

My name is Mashaylla Peterson, I am a judge for Hastings High School . I did LD debate for 4 years as well as going to nationals in world schools debate. I have competed and placed in Nat Quals congress, as well as learning *SOME* aspects of CX debate as well as judging speech and debaqte at the national level. This being said, I’m a very traditional judge. I enjoy LD because of the philosophy and moral appeal. I won’t typically vote for Kritiks or critical affirmatives unless the Role of the ballot and the rest of your case are on point. I DO NOT appreciate speed and I can’t flow what I don’t hear, so if you must speed, I suggest proper annunciation, and I would honestly ask that you make sure I know you are someone who speeds. Being said, SPEEDING and SPREADING are two VERY different things. I have not and will not vote for someone who spreads.

Here are things I've been typically known to vote on (some will be LD specific and some wont)

Framework- Any case should have framework that makes sense. I do expect (in varsity and especially at state, nat quals etc) that there is a framework debate that takes place. I also expect that the case you build goes with your framework and that you don't just have a bunch of random things put together. Basically at the end of the day I am and always will love a nice clear linkage throughout the ENTIRE case.

Value and Criterion- Considering this is LD's main focus besides your framework this is what I really want to see pulled all the way through the debate. I DO NOT appreciate circular standards, but I don't mind a well done single standard

Evidence: I don't typically like having to call and ask for evidence/philosophy but do keep in mind I put my heart and soul into LD.. I have been known in rounds to let you know if the philosophy in your case isn't correct or being used the right way, however I usually won't vote on incorrect evidence etc unless your opponent also notices and makes it part of the debate.

Last but not least my big expectation is to have clear impacts. At the end of the day as a judge I cant and do not want to vote for anything if I have no idea why I care about it. When doing impacts please also realize Micro Vs Macro debate. For instance if one of the impacts when I vote is: 3 million people die vs damage to the economy, typically its going to be way easier to vote for not killing a bunch of people. Obviously at the end of the day its going to be up to both debaters to bring the impacts down the flow so that I can see the harms vs the benefits of the aff/neg world

Other than things I have highlighted I am a pretty much anything goes judge. Good luck!

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

Worlds, I am a Worlds coach and this is my second year judging Worlds at Nationals. I judge to the rubric. 

Other Debate events, I flow the rounds. I also love impacts. If an argument is not attacked or sufficiently attacked in the round, it stands. If both sides have arguments standing, I weigh the impacts against each other and vote on that. I am not a Coms Judge, but I cannot flow what I cannot understand. I need articulation and a thorough understanding of your case.

Try to stay specific as the debate goes on in rebuttals and crystallization.

In PF, use cards sometimes in rebuttals. Do not rely solely on cross applying.

In LD, V/C is framework similar please apply it to your case rather than just debating which framework to go with. Clarity of what AFF and NEG are both advocating for is important for me to follow the debate (definitions), but I hate definitions debates, so don’t spend the whole speech on rebuttaling someone’s definition. Touching on it is sufficient. Be clear, but stay focused on the arguments.

I competed in policy debate for 3 years in high school and this is my 6th year coaching policy.

Language matters to me. I will dock your speaker points or vote you down for racism, sexism, ableism, etc. regardless of the outcome of the round. I don't tolerate rudeness and am not impressed by competitors who attempt to humiliate others. Be kind.

Give me a content warning if you are going to read domestic/sexual violence content - if you don't, you risk disrupting my ability to focus on your arguments.

I am a tab ras judge but probably default to policymaker if I'm not given framework to evaluate the round. If you don't answer framework, you will probably lose. I'll evaluate the round the way you tell me to.

I will listen to pretty much anything you want, and can handle moderate to high speed. If you are worried about speed, slow your tags and things will probably be fine. Don't spread to push the other team out - that's bad for debate and it's also just rude.

I'm fine listening to the K or critical AFFs, but if you can't explain it I probably won't vote on it - I may or may not be familiar with your lit ahead of time. Assume I'm not, and give strong analysis. If you are running the K only as a "gotcha" I will not be impressed and probably won't vote on it. Don't co-opt others' narratives in order to win debates.

I like theory args but I won't vote on theory based on strictly reading some blocks. Do the work.

I like specific links on disads and specific solvency on CPs but I will listen to generic args. Don't neglect the impact debate. It would take a lot (basically proven, in-round abuse) to get me to vote on condo bad.

T is my favorite argument of all time and I love love love a good T debate. I really hate voting on reasonability (but I have) and will default to competing interpretations. That said, I will listen to everything and make a careful decision, so do the work on the flow. The standards debate is especially key for me.

In general, I am not a fan of teams that try to bludgeon their opponents. If you are winning, I will know that. It is never necessary to treat others poorly to win.

Questions? Ask!

Peter Rehani

UPDATED 11/15/19: Clarified evidence policy and paradigm comprehension reward.

UPDATED 5/25/19 for NCFL NATIONALS SPECIFICALLY: Regarding prep time, I will allow 10 seconds for teams to find cards under the requester’s prep time; after that, I will consider it an abuse of prep time and therefore it will not count.

PF TLDR: Heavily flow based judge. My biggest voters rely on extensions and clash in the round. Weigh and define the voters in the final focus. If you have a framework, I expect you to explain why you win under that framework (similarly, if your opponent's provide a framework, weigh under that too). Signpost. Signpost. Signpost.

Congress TLDR: I try to weigh speaking style equally for debate--for debate, I look for clash, extension, and clear reference back to previous speakers. Avoid rehash at all costs, else you will end up on the bottom of my ballot. Speak clearly and ensure that your speeches are clear and well structured.

I strongly encourage you to read this thoroughly. PLEASE ASK ME BEFORE THE ROUND IF SOMETHING IS UNCLEAR TO YOU. I will gladly answer any questions before the round (or after the round). I will try my absolute best to justify my decisions to you (debaters!) during PF disclosure, and if I'm not communicating in a way that you understand, it is YOUR responsibility speak up and let me know.

PF Paradigm:

• If the tournament doesn't explicitly disallow plans and both teams agree before the round to allow plans, feel free to run a plan-based debate if the topic calls for it. I find it more educational.
• In the case of an evidence question being called, I default to tournament rules; barring specific guidelines from the tournament (if tournaments require prep to be run), my policy is to begin prep as soon as the opposing team provides the exact location of the reference. All citations should include dates. Paraphrasing is a realistic way to get more evidence on the flow, but you shouldn't be using evidence as your argument -- they are there to supplement and support your arguments. Otherwise I default to not running prep for evidence exchange.
• If it's not in the final focus, it's not a voter.
• I appreciate effective crossfire, however I don't flow it unless you explicitly tell me to write something down, like a specific concession (hint: you should do this, explicitly say "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 allowed to just read case, I expect FULL case/off-case coverage in EVERY speech starting with the 2nd rebuttal (4th overall speech) -- i.e. extend everything that you want weighed. 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 those arguments in case. I vastly prefer to see framework at the top of all speeches, as it provides structure and a lens to understand your arguments--if you wait 1:30 into summary to discuss framework, it's likely that I'll lose it on the flow.
• For rebuttal, my general preference for the sake of sanity in organization is concise, top down, line by line responses. I feel that this is often the best way to ensure that you get through everything in the case. Rebuttal does not have to repeat everything, but should provide organized responses. Please signpost.
• I am very likely not the judge you want if you're running a non-canonical strategy, like a "kritik". I am an engineer and I have a fairly rigid policymaker paradigm.
• I don't flow anything called an "overview". Overviews are heuristic explanations to help me make sense of the round. Please don't expect to generate offense off of an overview.
• I'm fine if you'd like to time yourselves with an alarm; however, for the sake of common courtesy, please turn this off if you plan to time your opponents.
• 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 'lobster' in your speech, I will give you and your partner a metaphorical 0.5 extra speaker points, since it means you read my philosophy thoroughly. This applies to LD too.
• 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.
• Please give me voter issues in the final focus. Weigh if at all possible. When I weigh for you, hell breaks loose. I cannot stress this enough.

Congress Paradigm:

• I try to judge congressional debate through as balanced a lens as possible--this means I tend to value speaking quality equally to the quality of your debate abilities.
• Typically, the biggest reason that I knock speakers down comes from non-original arguments/causing rehash in the debate. I feel that this decreases the quality of the debate and fundamentally mitigates the educational benefits of congressional debate.
• Regarding roleplay of a true Congress, I think it adds a bit of humor to the debate and leads to more engaged speakers.
• On the note of questioning, I prefer when students keep questions as concise as possible to avoid burying the speaker in a mountain of jargon.
• Clash and extension (similar to my PF paradigm) are my biggest factors on the debate side--please please please introduce clash and cite the speaker that you are extending or clashing. It helps to follow the flow of the argument as you speak, and it demonstrates you're actually paying attention.
• The later you speak in cycle, the more clash I expect to see and I judge on that metric. Similarly, I strongly dislike having 2 speeches on the same side, as it often leads to rehash. If you are speaking for the second time on the same bill, I look more closely for unique arguments and extended clash, and tend to judge these speeches slightly more harshly.
• Extension of questioning time often leads to less speeches getting in, and ultimately means that less people get a chance to speak. For this reason, I'm typically opposed to having students extend their questioning periods.
• For later cycle, I don't mind crystallization speeches but I do expect to see weighing and clear reference back to previous speakers.
• As stated above, your evidence is not your argument--It serves to support your argument.
• Speaking: gestures and clear movements add to structure and to the quality of your speech. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing, and non directed movements do not. I tend to prefer when speakers keep it simple with the style instead of over-complicating everything.
• For authorships, sponsorships, and first negs, I tend to look at fluency breaks and time more critically, as these are speeches that should be well rehearsed ahead of time.
• I view a logical argument that flows well to be on par with literal evidence from a perspective of supporting your arguments. This means that 1-you shouldn't be afraid to use logic in your speeches and 2-evidence debates will not hold up for me.

General Thoughts

No matter what event I am judging, I look for some of the same basics. I try to be prepared and professional-you should be too. You will not be rewarded for being obviously unprepared, unprofessional, or for wasting my (or your competitor's) time. No matter what event, good presentation will be rewarded.

Public Forum Debate

In general, you should be clear both in what you are saying and how you are saying it. While I do flow the round, I decide the round primarily on which team more effectively convinced me they were correct. Your words, demeanor, and speaking all factor into this. Presentation is important to me. I prefer that you present your case to the room, not your laptop or paper. The more time you spend looking down, the less time you get to truly sell me your case.

PFD is meant to be accessible to the average person. Using a lot of debate jargon or odd argumentation theories will not win me over. I prefer a brisk, but conversational speed. If you speak so fast that I can't flow your arguments, how am I supposed to weigh them to decide the round.

Arguments should be well thought out and supported by evidence. They should be apparent and easy to hear. Use a variety of sources, don't just stick to one or two cards throughout the entire debate, especially if they are not the most current.

I decide the round based on what was presented in that round, and that round only. As long as you can clearly articulate your arguments with sound sources and argumentation, I will buy-in to them. My personal opinions do not matter when I am deciding a round-only what you as competitors say factors into my decision.

I do keep time in the round, but I am not a stickler. Time yourselves, time your partners, time your opponents. If you go over time by a few seconds to finish a thought, that's OK. Just don't abuse it. And keep off-time roadmaps to a minimum.

Congressional Debate

I know paradigms aren't as common in congressional debate as in other forms of debate, but for clarity and consistency's sake, here are some of my thoughts on congress.

Most of the same principles still apply-present your speech to the chamber, not your laptop or paper. Convincing me is all the more important since your only get three minutes per speech. I do tend to weigh presentation more heavily in a congress chamber than in PFD or LD. You should not speak so fast I have a difficult time following your case. It is paramount you are clear and effective in your speaking.

Specific to congress, I want you to take on the role of a representative (or senator). You will get points for being mindful of "your constituents" and generally acting as if you are representing the American populous. Congress is not really the event for jargon or odd theories of argumentation-it is a time to debate real issues that are faced by real people everyday.

Additionally, be active in chamber. Don't just give your speech, answer some questions, and sit there until the next bill. Show me that your are invested in the debate taking place-or at least are pretending to be invested in it.

Presiding has no out-sized impact on your rankings. If you preside really well it will be as if you gave a really good speech. If you preside not so well, it will be as if you gave a not so great speech. Just because your preside does not mean you are guaranteed to be ranked, but it does not mean you will never be ranked. It's all a part of congressional debate. Be memorable-after all you're in a chamber with many other competitors. At the end of the day, the best all around competitor in the chamber will get the best rank on my ballot.

World Schools Debate

In general, I look for the same things in World School as I do in other debate styles-be clear, be consistent, have good facts, and convince me why you are correct. However, World Schools Debate is its own distinct form of debate and should be treated as such. Adhering to the specific rules and style of World Schools Debate is a must in order to get the best score possible. Don't turn this into three-person Policy, PFD, or LD.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

I judge Lincoln-Douglas the least out of the three events listed here. In general, the same rules apply-be clear, be consistent, have good facts, and convince me why you are correct. The competitor that does this the best will win the round.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I am one judge for one round. These are my opinions, and everyone has their own. Don't read too much into this. Speech and debate is meant to be a fun and educational experience. I hope your experience is both fun and rewarding, no matter the result.

Good luck!

I can’t follow you/hear everything if you don't speak succinctly & enunciate. I prefer evidence for your stance & logical counters to your opponent’s views. I’m mostly conservative BUT I am not afraid to live outside the box!! Find an example of your substantive points and show me it is in use in the real world. I am not in need of 'off time roadmaps' I will listen to what you say.

I'm not impressed by sophistry.

Table of Contents

General Info

LD Paradigm

PF Paradigm

World Schools Paradigm

General Dislikes/Notes

Theory Issues

General Info

Started Judging: 2008

Started Coaching: 2010

Events Coached: LD, PF, Policy, Extemp, World Schools

Delivery: I don't want emails, flash drives, or printed copies. This is a speaking event and I plan to judge your argument based on your delivery of your case and rebuttals. I can handle fast talking, but no longer try to keep up with spreading. There is no educational merit, and many downsides, to encouraging students to speak at vastly accelerated paces.

Cross (excluding World Schools): I expect debaters to be polite during cross, but do not consider interruptions to be impolite. I understand cross time is limited and if you have the information you want and wish to move on to another question I understand.

RFD - If the tournament allows it, I will be happy to give my decision and discuss as long as competitors want/tournament time allows. If the tournament doesn't allow it, I will not disclose. If you try to get me to disclose at a tournament that doesn't allow disclosure I will take points away from you.

Lincoln-Douglas

Overview: LD is a moral debate that is meant to look at the underlying value of an issue. I favor a broad based approach that looks at the totality of the resolution vs. cases that over-focus on single examples or instances.

Values: I expect both debaters to have a value/standard/etc that clarifies the moral principle they are pushing for. Broadly speaking, I recognize values as automatic principles that don't need additional defense. If you tell me the most important moral issue is ensuring liberty/equality/artistic expression/self-actualization, I'll accept it as good. Having a sentence or two to explain the value/why you think it is important can be very helpful, but I don't need a long defense of the concept.

It is very hard, though not impossible, to disprove a value during a debate. Generally I expect to see the debate be about whether each side actually accomplishes the value they have outlined, not whether the value is morally good (the latter question becomes very hard for any person to judge without bringing their personal feelings into the debate).

Burden: Each side in LD has an equal burden. There is no Aff presumption that they get to set the terms, nor is there any Aff burden that they have to prove more than the Neg.

Flow: While I expect debaters to argue on the flow structure, I'm more looking to the upholding of the central principle (value) then whether debaters covered every contention.

Plans: I don't want to hear a plan and they usually don't make sense within the context of LD. That said, there are two very different types of plans that come up.

Broad explanations: Presume the motion: 'The US should end fossil fuel subsidies.' If the plan was that that US would end all payments to fossil fuel companies over the next five years, that would be fine. That's a common sense interpretation of what the motion is asking. I consider that more of an observation on the burdens of the resolution.

Narrow Plans: Taking the above motion, if the plan was 'the US will end payments to coal companies', to me that would be a bad plan. The Aff in this instance is trying to unfairly narrow the debate. The resolution's burden was end fossil fuel subsidies, not to end one type of fossil fuel subsidies. In such an example if the Neg said the Aff hadn't upheld the resolution, I'd almost certainly agree.

Both sides in a debate have an obligation to argue the entirety of the motion. Single, narrow examples on either side that don't relate to a broader principle are not enough to prove your side correct or the opponent's side incorrect.

Public Forum

PF is meant to be delivered to a general audience, not to people experienced with debate. Thus I will judge it as who did better communicating to a general audience. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum.

Final Focus is meant to narrow down the debate and explain the most important issues. It should be between 1 and 3 points. A final focus should not try to explain every single contention.

World Schools

Scoring - My ultimate decision will be holistic - I evaluate the round based on which team won the overall debate. This is not a debate where 'what is true at the end of the round' wins the debate, the entire debate is evaluated.

Unless I hear differently at judge instructions my scoring standard is -

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

Above a 75 is reserved for truly amazing speeches. On a level of "I ran out of the room to tell other people how amazing it was".

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

What I'm looking for in each area:

Content - Logic, analysis, explanation, and evidence. Good content should be backed up by logic and explanation, but also thoroughly explained for how it helps your side. Just stating an opinion, even of an expert, on an issue isn't enough; it needs to be explained and tied to the overall argument.

Style - This is scored just like an oratory. I look for things like eye contact, understandable speed, clarity, emphasis through tone/volume changes or pauses to call emphasis to key points, and emotion and interest. Humor and/or emotional intensity may gain points if appropriate for the motion.

Strategy - Was the speech well put together? Was time well spent on the key issue, or where minor portions of the debate given too much attention? Did the speaker belabor arguments he/she had already won?

POIs - I expect a speaker to take around two POIs during his/her speech. These should be spread throughout the speech. If the first two are taken, and all others ignored, I will not count that as taking a good number of POIs.

Taking excessive POIs will hurt the strategy score. The only exception to this is if the speaker is winning (improving their side) when taking POIs - in that case continuing to take POIs is acceptable.

If a team is not trying to ask their opponent POIs, or asking very infrequently, then obviously the requirement to take two disappears.

POIs should be no longer than 15 seconds. That is the absolute max amount of time I think you have a right to take from an opponent. The speaker has the right to cut the POI off at any point and answer/continue.

Barraging - I think it is reasonable to stand 12 to 15 times during an opponent's speech (this is for the entire opposing team). Even going up to 20 could be acceptable. More than that though and you are taking away from the opponent's right to give a speech. For online WSD this should be cut in half.

I will take away/reward up to 2 points per speaker based on quality of POIs. A bad POI is one that the opponent is able to use to strengthen their own case or just a waste of time. A good POI strengthens the case of the deliverer or points to a weakness in the opponent's argument.

Framework/Terms of Debate - The prop has the right to set the framework for the debate. I define framework as an explanation of what the motion means, what, if any, specific burdens exist, what, if any, things are trying to be achieved, and what, if any, mechanism is being used (if any of those are not being done, because they don't need to be, you don't need to tell me, I'll understand). This framework must be fair and reasonable.

Fair - Does it give both teams an equal chance to win. If you try to define the debate in a way that substantially benefits your team I will consider that a bad framework for strategy scores.

Reasonable - Was this framework something that a person would consider the motion to mean upon hearing it? This framework should be based more on a common understanding of the words, not strict dictionary definitions.

Example - If the motion was 'THBT the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes' and the prop tried to argue that they only had to show a single example, that would be a bad framework. It's not fair to the opposition and no person who was asked that motion would think they were being asked about a single hypothetical instance. If the proposition defined it as 'only in cases of premeditated murder' or 'for war crimes or crimes against humanity', either of those would most likely be fair.

Challenging Framework - If you believe the framework is unfair/abusive/unreasonable, you may challenge it. If you want to make a slight adjustment/clarification/addition you may also do that, but here I am focusing on a challenge to the entire framework proposed.

Alternative - You should offer an alternative framework. This must conform to the above standards of fair and reasonable.

First Thing - The challenge to the framework should be the first thing in the speech. If the prop disagrees with the opposition framework, it should be the first thing in their speech (and so on until there is an agreement on framework or we're out of debate).

I don't like framework debate. If the proposition framework is fair and reasonable and the opposition challenges it, the opposition will probably lose. Likewise if the proposition proposes an unfair framework, they will likely lose.

Other Issues:

When a speaker finishes, the next speaker should promptly proceed to wherever speeches are being given. There is no prep time. You may organize your materials, but you should not be having a conversation with your teammates. Once you get to the speaking position please confirm that I am ready for you to begin.

General Dislikes (All Debates)

If a team falsifies their evidence I will always vote them down. I do not care about the level of impact it had on the debate or whether the mistake was done via maliciousness or negligence. I see falsification as any of the following:

-Creating a piece of evidence

-Changing the wording of the evidence to alter meaning

-Cutting the evidence in a way to leave out arguments that might hurt your case.

I will also punish misinterpretations of the evidence, though the degree of penalty is determined by the level of misinterpretation. I see this as situations where the speaker makes substantial errors about the quality of the source, who paraphrases the evidence in a manner that is not accurate, or misunderstands the point the author was making.

Things I commonly see that I dislike

"My opponent did not attack X contention, therefore they must agree." This isn't true. If an opponent hasn't gotten to an argument in the time allowed for them to make their initial arguments, they can not offer any new evidence, but that doesn't mean they agree. The fact that they have their own case means they have principles that disagree with you and they can always argue why their side is more important. Also, many times people will claim their opponent hasn't attacked a certain contention when I have on my flow that they have.

"If I can prove just a 1% chance of this impact, I should win this debate." This is a profoundly silly line of argument.

"My evidence says I'm right" "Well, my evidence says I'm right", "What my opponent is forgetting is that my evidence says I'm right". I commonly see debates that just become a circle of the debaters going back to the evidence they read that backed their side and inherently presuming their evidence is superior to their opponents. During evidence clashes someone has to explain why their evidence is superior: more topical, better source, more logical, etc.

If you have an important piece of evidence, please explain the validity of the source if the name doesn't explain it (major news organizations, magazines, politicians, college institutions, could have an explanation, but don't need one per se). If I just hear 'According to Williams in 2017', I have no idea who Williams is. I'll evaluate whatever you say as if you'd delivered it without a source if you don't explain why the source matters.

"My evidence is more recent so you must prefer it." In certain cases recency is important, but it has to be explained why.

Theory

Theory issues are a check for fairness. Ideally, theory should never come up in a "good" debate, but they do need to exist.

I define theory as arguments that in some way deal with your opponent(s) having violated the structure of what a "good" debate should be. Examples: they are off topic, their delivery is inappropriate, they aren't providing their evidence, etc. Issues that don't have anything to do with the core resolution/motion, but based off how they are dealing with it.

To me, if you run theory you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating/being abusive. This is the most important issue in debate, but one that should only be run if you believe it to be true. If you run a theory argument that is itself abusive (ex: topicality against an obvious topical argument), I will hold it against you.

I listen to the debate in front of me and hope that you are respectful, courteous, and inclusive with how you approach your opponent and the debate space (ie: please don't argue in favor of indefensible things, like racism, sexism, etc.). I flow each round, but am also fine with you consolidating or responding to the big picture if that's what you want to do (and if you want to do a line by line instead, that's fine, too).

A little about me: I have been a part of the speech and debate community for over 20 years, as a competitor, coach, and now state association leader. I've coached and judged every event from LD to CX to WSD at all different levels. Have fun, learn a lot, and be a good community member in round and I will, too.

⬅️Also, that is my dog, Petey. He serves no purpose other than hey, you might be a little stressed reading paradigms before your round and *look at his little face*.

My PF/LD paradigm is at the bottom.

World Schools Debate Tournament Paradigm:

I am the head coach of Team Golden Desert, the returning co-Chair of Worlds at Nats, and the author of the NSDA Learn Course "Intro to Coaching: World Schools." Our teams been at least 4-2 in prelims at all National tournaments, and been in outrounds of Dallas, SLC, Ft. Lauderdale, Dallas (the second one), Online, Louisville, Phoenix, and Des Moines (where we were Semifinalists). I have judged Semifinals multiple times.

I flow on a spreadsheet to keep track of both arguments and points throughout the round. I score at the end of every speech, although I do occasionally award or detract points based on POIs. My decision will be ready almost immediately upon the end of the round, though I may take a moment to gather what I wish to say to you about why the decision is that way.

I will weigh your content on validity, reliability, and strength. Poor evidence will result in poor content scores, regardless of whether or not your opponents expose these flaws. Their choice not to expose them affects their scores too, but your speech is scored before they speak.

I expect the Proposition team to offer a Burden and lay the ground for the debate. I expect this ground to be based upon the general understanding of the debate. Squirrely ground is not OK. However, I expect the Opposition to reply to the Proposition's burden, even if they decide to persuade me that it was squirrely and attempt to re-establish the ground.

In motions that suggest a mechanism/model, I would like to hear one from the Proposition, but do not require it. If the Opposition has a counter-mechanism, they should offer it *only* if doing so makes the debate stronger, and still maintains clash, not to attempt to draw the Proposition into a corner. The Opposition should be prepared for the Proposition to adopt the proposed mechanism, if Proposition offered none, or to subsume the Opposition's mechanism if it is simply an addendum to what has been said.

If you choose to offer a counter-mechanism, it is your burden to prove that it will work. The Proposition does get access to a certain amount of fiat because they have to attempt to accomplish the motion. So, if the motion is "This House would break up Big Tech," and the Proposition tells me "We do not have to prove that governments would pass legislation breaking up Big Tech, we simply have to prove that it would be a good idea," I'm going to buy that argument. The current political climate may view breaking up Big Tech as anathema, but they didn't write the motion, so I have to cut them some slack. The Opposition, however, has no access to fiat on a counter-mechanism because they are introducing it into the debate. Therefore, if the Opposition says "We propose instead that we would put in place regulations like A, B, and C, and create a position to oversee Big Tech like X," that now becomes something that the Opposition has to prove they could potentially do. Many things that are argued as counter-mechanisms, though, can just be points of advocacy. In the case above, the Opposition could simply say, "Regulation is better than breaking up Big Tech, here's some examples" and they're making an argument, not a mechanism. Those regulations already exist in the status quo, and the Opposition is frequently just saying that we shouldn't make a specific change to the status quo. 99.99% of the time, making the argument is going to be better than trying to get fancy with a Counter-mechanism.

I expect your delivery to sound natural. There should not be a bunch of debate jargon, or a debate about how, theoretically, the ideal debate on this topic should happen. I do not expect to hear cards, or speed, and relying upon the words of others to carry your speech or exceeding natural delivery deliberately and consistently will be penalized.

I appreciate really strong POIs, and I do not expect them to always be questions.

I expect to hear great crystallization in the 3rd speech and reply. This means that arguments may end up being irrelevant to the end-game, and that's absolutely OK. Picking the important arguments is a really important skill and will be rewarded as such.

I don't like requesting POIs in an obviously disruptive manner. I completely understand wanting to break the flow. However, being a jerk is being a jerk.

If you think a reasonable person could see what you are about to do as racist, sexist, ableist, jingoist, ethnocentrist, classist, or in any other way prejudiced, Do Not Say It! Your score will drop precipitously. There is a difference between supporting your side and doing any of these things.

If you are talking over your opponent, ignoring your opponent, or being verbally or physically dismissive toward your opponent, there had better be an amazingly good reason for it. If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, you are doing them and yourself an extraordinary disservice, and you are costing yourself copious amounts of speaker points.

Number of Years Coaching: 17 years, all forms of debate--I also debated in HS and coach the Golden Desert World Schools team
NWCTA Coach
Number of Years Judging: 17, primarily PF, LD, and WSD


LD/PF Philosophy:

I expect you to set up the framework by which I should be judging the round. If you fail to do this, even if you think your value argument was wildly compelling, I may decide it subsumes to something else. If you think your value argument is tantamount, tell me that. Crystallizing the round is extremely important.

The framework of your debate should not be about how unfair the structure of the debate is to your side. You chose to enter into debate. You knew the rules. If you'd like them to change, write an editorial for the Rostrum. (NB: You may include observations about how the debate should be weighed/viewed, as these are important to the round, but if you're not arguing for or against the resolution at some point, I am extremely unlikely to pick you up.)

I prefer that LD debate not be conducted at lightning speed. I don't even like my policy rounds conducted that way. Debate is supposed to be about clearly articulating arguments, and if I can't understand you, you aren't doing that. Having a lot of evidence is admirable, but it's not nearly as important as having compelling evidence with clear analysis. You don't win by picking and arranging cards. You win by explaining how these pieces of evidence create a compelling rationale. Cases without clear impact analysis and links will lose in front of me, even if they have 20 pages of citations.

LD/PF Paradigm:
If you don't extend your arguments, they will drop off my flow.

If you plan to run off-case or performative arguments, it is your burden to explain how they link to the debate on the resolution.

I expect you to time one another. Holding each other accountable is important.

I try not to call for evidence, but I expect you to be prepared to hand any evidence requested to myself or your opponents ASAP. If you are failing to provide evidence that should be easily available, I will definitely hold this against you, and I may start charging you prep time to find it.

Please don't ask me to "Drop the debater." I'll drop your opponent's arguments if you've proven that they're bad, but I'm not going to drop them. You don't mean to be making an ad hom attack, but you basically are. If you are, in fact, meaning to make an ad hominem attack because your opponent is being offensive, then that would be the only time I find this terminology appropriate.

If you are talking over your opponent, ignoring your opponent, or being verbally or physically dismissive toward your opponent, there had better be an amazingly good reason for it. If you fail to engage with your opponent as an intellectual equal worthy of competing against you in the round, you are doing them and yourself an extraordinary disservice, and you are costing yourself copious amounts of speaker points.

If you think a reasonable person could see what you are about to do as racist, sexist, ableist, jingoist, ethnocentrist, classist, or in any other way prejudiced, Do Not Say It! Your score will drop precipitously. There is a difference between supporting your side and doing any of these things.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is value-based debate. Debaters should provide value clash. In a round where one debater provides line-by-line analysis of a case (but does not discuss values), while the other debater drops one or two arguments (but provides a cohesive and comprehensive value argument), I will choose the latter debater as the winner.

Public Forum debate is a team debate. I'd like to see teamwork and demonstration of equal participation between teammates. Both debaters on both teams should ask and answer questions during grand crossfire.

For any form of debate, when it comes to evidence, quality is much more important than quantity. I prefer to hear fewer pieces of evidence well-analyzed and discussed than many pieces of evidence cited in quick succession. The existence of a card is not in itself an argument. I can only judge arguments, so provide them.

I am a former CX competitor from the late 80s and early 90s from a small 3A district. To that end, my experience and preference falls within the traditional range and not progressive. While I can understand the nuances of it and appreciate its overall intent, it goes well outside of the traditional realm that I prefer. I want clear line by line, clash and impacts that are meaningful and arguments that are well fleshed out. I don't need theoretical situations and kritiks of the resolution. Debate what is given to you as the framers intended it to be debated. I would rather have one or two solid arguments that are carried through a round as opposed to superfluous argumentation that ends up being kicked out of anyway or that operates in a world that is far less meaningful than traditional argumentation.

When it comes to extemp, I am also a traditionalist and expect a speech that is well balanced and that answers the prompt a contestant has been given. (Attention Getter/Hook - Thesis - Points - Conclusion that wraps up). Source variety is as important to me as is the number of sources. Fluidity is the real key. Don't make the speech choppy and don't offer so much content that you are unable to go back and analyze what you've spoken about. This is particularly true when it comes to lots of stats and numbers; don't overload a speech with content on that level that there is no real understanding of how you have synthesized the information you've given. And if you are also a debater, please remember - this is a SPEAKING event, not a debate event.

For topics that err on the side of persuasive and controversial, I DO NOT have an issue with topics that you feel could be flash-points that you think bias will impact the outcome. As long as you can substantiate and articulate what you are talking about with credible information and good analysis, we'll be good and the ballot will be free of bias.

I competed for 4 years in Congress for Newton South HS in Newton, MA, graduating in 2018. I also competed in Extemp, Public Forum, and World Schools at different times.

Worlds Schools Paradigm (Specific to 2020 Nationals)

I only competed in Worlds a couple times, and I mostly forget what it's like. I have far more experience with Parli, particularly APDA format, and I'm probably going to judge the rounds similar to how I judge APDA. This means that I am going to flow the round, decide who wins, and figure out speaker points accordingly after.

Worlds is supposed to be about "big ideas," while other forms of debate are about "winning on the flow." The judge guide tells me that it's okay for me to not "vote on arguments [I] think are poorly explained/justified or wildly implausible even if the other team doesn’t explicitly respond to them."

I remember a lot of frustration with judge inconsistency when I competed at 2018 Nationals, so I want to try to be somewhat clear how I view the WSD method of judging not directly off the flow. I will try my best to vote off of "big ideas" as opposed to dropped minor arguments, but it would take an extreme circumstance for me to intervene in the round and reject a main argument. For example, I will not heavily weigh an argument because Opp didn't respond to 1 Prop warrant in the opening speech that was dropped throughout the round, if Opp adequately engaged with the argument holistically. That being said, I can't imagine a (not offensive) contention that I would drop off the flow if a team was winning it, because I thought it was poorly warranted/explained/justified.

Things you SHOULD do in WSD:

--Above all else: WEIGH in the 4th speech (and throughout the round). Highly unlikely that I would vote off any argument not clearly weighed in the 4th speech. I am a pragmatic leaning guy - you want me to vote off of a principle argument, you need to explain and weigh it well in the context of the round.

--Signposting: tell me where to flow things.

--Extending major arguments through the round. Any constructive argument that you want me to vote off of to be substantively discussed (and weighed) in all 3 speeches (or 2nd and 3rd if you introduce it in the second speech). If the other team totally drops your argument just mention it again and you can weigh it. What I will NOT vote off of is if you go for two random bad warrants from your first speech that no one addresses throughout the round (because this is worlds, not parli).

--Model: Gov should give me a clear model that's both reasonable and strategic, and include clear burdens, and should be prepared to defend their model; Opp should contest the model if need be.

Things you should NOT to do in WSD:

--Off time road maps. If it's so important, use your time for it.

--Do not try to distract the other team's speaker by rising for a million POIs. I remember this from when I competed and it sucked. Also, I probably won't flow your POI, only the response from the speaker to it, so if you bring something up in a POI you need to mention it in your speech. Also there is no need for you use a POI to just remind me of the main argument in your speech because I flowed it.

--Don't be a terrible person: racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress Paradigm

I'm looking for legislators who will advance debate. This means (generally in order of importance):

ABOVE ALL ELSE:

--Know your place in the round! Early speeches should focus on constructive arguments, mid-round speeches should focus on refutation and extending arguments, and late round speeches should crystalize and weigh the debate. Do not give me a 2 point constructive in the 8th cycle. Even though I ask for clash below, don’t be afraid of speaking early - I expect less clash and I understand the important role you’re playing in the debate. This is very important and something I've found the majority of competitors are not doing in prelims at nationals. If you don't reference other speakers' arguments in the 3th cycle or later, you are almost certainly not going to be ranked.

EVERYTHING ELSE IMPORTANT:

--Clash! Starting with the first negative, every speech should be refuting and building off of previous speeches. If you don't reference other speakers sometime after the third cycle, you will almost certainly not be ranked. It's not enough to contradict someone, say their name, and then say you're right. I need you to briefly explain the aspect of the argument, and then explain why it's wrong (actually clash).

-- Interpret the bill correctly: Way too many kids debate the bill based on the title, not the text of the bill (which is written incorrectly by the author), or misconstrue the bill to make it easier to debate. Often times everyone in the room accepts the misreading because it makes the debate easier. Don't do this! If you think people are reading the bill incorrectly, point this out! I'm talking blatant mischaracterizations - obviously, there are some cases where the bill is vague and you can and should make arguments as to why your interpretation is correct.

--Clear Warrants! You need to explain the link chain behind your evidence/argument and why it's true. This advances debate because it makes it easier for other legislators to engage with your arguments, which helps you. The best debaters can simplify complex arguments and explain them powerfully, clearly, and concisely.

--Impacts! Be detailed. Explain to me how the U.S. will be better if we vote on your side of the debate. Ideally quantified (dependent on bill topic). Over the top rhetoric is wasting your time, not a substitute for logic and evidence.

--Evidence! Your evidence should actually support your argument, not tangentially related prep from a bill you debated last year.

Other Things:

--Speaking Speed:

For normal in person, I'm fine with very fast speaking, provided that: 1) You enunciate well and are understandable. 2) Speed isn't your way of getting around having bad word economy. 3) You don't start yelling whenever you speed up. On Zoom, speak slowly.

--Sponsorships: I rank sponsorships very highly if they're actually a sponsorship style speech (ie. background information to introduce bill, explain problem, how bill solves, impacts), and I'll have lower expectations if no one wants to give it. I will not rank a typical affirmative constructive highly even if no one else volunteered to give it.

--Presiding: I presided a lot during my career — I'll rank you very very highly if you do a good job but I also know when you mess up.

--Ask Questions! Not gonna lie I'm usually focusing on writing speech feedback during questioning, so with indirect questioning, I care more about how the speaker answers than how you questioner asks, but I'll notice over time who is asking good questions and staying engaged.

--Decorum: Call out the PO if they mess up, but be nice about it. The PO is doing his/her best and I likely already noticed the error. Sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. comments to legislators or arguments in round will not be tolerated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF Paradigm

I understand that "off-time roadmaps" are in vogue these days. Do not give me an off-time roadmap. Structuring your speech in a way that's understandable, within the allotted time, is a skill that we should be judging. I don't need a roadmap - just signpost where you are on the flow during the speech.*

*(If I'm on a panel and the other judges want a roadmap, I will be grumpy but I won't stop you)

Assume that I am up to date on widely-covered current events, but know nothing specific about the resolution.

Evidence isn't enough - explain it and give clear warrants. I'd rather a lot of good logical warranting than a card you don't explain well.

I don't care if you respond to first rebuttal in second rebuttal or if you do it in summary - just whenever you do it, signpost it clearly.

WEIGH!! - Summary and focus need weighing. Write my RFD. If no one weighs I will be very unhappy. Good weighing wins rounds and bad weighing usually beats no weighing.

Speed - fine with however fast you want as long as you enunciate and signpost.

Cross examination - don't be afraid to (politely) cut your opponent off if they're clearly spewing bs or trying to waste time, I will know they are too and be cool with it. Grand cross, don't speak over your partner.

Don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic etc

The speed of speech is not as important as your control and clarity. Roadmaps are great. It’s not necessary to tell me how to vote, show me that you are the clear choice based on compelling evidence and sound logic. Be courteous to your teammate and opponents, be professional, represent your school as they would want to be seen. I’ll be looking for your knowledge in building a strong case, use of great evidence, and your enjoyment of debate.

I’m sure many judges are more detailed and specific. I’m not going to tell you how to debate to win my vote - every team is unique and I don't have a favored 'type'. I do pay attention to speaking skills, but the way to my vote is strong persuasion based on a relevant and sound argument. A word about crossfires - ask questions that help your case. I know this sounds obvious, but it is not a time to sell your case - it is a time to expose holes or inconsistencies in your oppoment's arguments.

Best of luck - and no matter what, you're already a winner for choosing debate as your passion!

Extemporaneous Speaking and Oratory: I prefer 3 pieces of evidence to support your speech.

Interpretation events: Teasers and introductions should be creative.

Blocking: If competing virtually, blocking should remain in the frame.

*If you are performing an emotional piece, please do not scream. Just speak loudly.

*I do not mind cursing as long as it does not take over your piece.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

I am a head debate coach at East Ridge High School in Minnesota with 12 years of debate under my belt and 17 years of speech coaching / judging experience as well. I love both activities, and I love seeing creative / unique approaches to them. I've sent several students to Nationals in both speech and debate categories for the past several years.

In 'real life' I'm an intellectual property attorney. I love good arguments in all types of debate. But I will NOT make logic jumps for you. You need to do the legwork and lay out the argument for me, step by step. I LOVE legal arguments, but most of all I love a good Story. Frame your arguments for me. Make the impacts CLEAR. (e.g. in PF / LD - WEIGH them.) Tell me how and why to write my ballot for you and I probably will!

Voting Values
I vote on topicality in any type of debate that I judge. If your arguments are non-topical, and you get called on it, they will be struck from my flow. Everyone got the same resolution / bills, that's what I want to hear arguments about.

I am NOT a fan of Kritiks - you got the resolution ahead of time. Debate it.

SPEED

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Re: new arguments in GC/FF - I won't weigh new ARGUMENTS, but I will consider new EVIDENCE / extensions.

Re: Argument / Style - I'm here to weigh your arguments. Style is only important to the extent you are understandable.

I generally don't buy nuclear war arguments. I don't believe any rational actor gets to nuclear war. I'll give you nuclear miscalc or accident, but it's a HIGH burden to convince me two heads of state will launch multiple warheads on purpose.

Lincoln-Douglas: If you give me a V/C pairing, I expect you to tie your arguments back to them. If your arguments don't tie back to your own V/C, I won't understand their purpose. This is a values debate. Justify the value that you choose, and then explain why your points best support your value.

Congress: I need a thesis statement in your speech, and signposting when you move from point to point. No thesis statement ==> I won't understand your speech structure ==> I won't follow it ==> you won't get ranked well. Speech structure is SO important to being persuasive!

That said, this is debate. Beautiful speeches, alone, belong in Speech categories. I expect to see that you can speak well, but I am not thrilled to listen to the same argument presented three times. I expect to see clash, I expect to see good Q&A. I love good rebuttal / crystallization speeches.

I DO rank successful POs - without good POs, there is no good Congressional Debate. If you PO well in front of me, you will be ranked well.

World Schools: This actually is my favorite form of debate. I want to see respectful debate, good use of POIs, and organized content. I've judge WSD at Nationals for the last several years and I do adhere to the WSD norms. Please do not give me "regular debate" speed - I want understandable, clear speeches.

I did not debate in either high school or college, but began judging when my daughter started high school. I don't have a preference for any particular event, and enjoy judging both debate and IE.

Re: IE - I love almost all of the events (except DI, but I'll judge it if they need me to), and I know what good interpretation looks like. If you're doing Impromptu, be aware that I'll give the higher rankings to kids who literally improvise their speeches to match the topic, and give the bottom rankings to kids who improv their intros and then pull out their same three examples no matter what the topic is, even if the improv isn't as smooth as the rehearsed one.

I love clash in a debate, and value logic and argumentation. I flow rounds, but I am not one of those judges who is all in my own head thinking about what I would say if I were in your shoes. You should convince me that (a) your arguments are stronger and (b) that your opponents dropped parts of your case. Link chains should be well-explained; they're called "link" for a reason.

I've learned to really appreciate topicality debates, but I also like other types of debate as well.

I'm a native New Yorker, born and bred. I think fast, I write fast, and I talk fast. However, let me remind you that I am a lay judge. If you are spreading, I am more likely to offer you an asthma inhaler than to decide that you have won the round.

Finally, I can't stand when people say something like, "I/we can't debate this! This is UNFAIR to our side!" Yes. Yes, you can. You are a debater. Make it so.

I have coached all events, including directing One Act Play. I understand the value of performance. While I love interpretation and public speaking events, I am a debater at heart. Below is my paradigm for judging policy. 80% of what I say here can also be applied to LD and PF debate.

No matter what I say, I truly believe the round is what YOU make of it. Affirmative gets to set the scope, Negative gets to pick the arguments. Debate the way you were taught and in a way that will make your coach and your community proud of you. I love organization. Tell me what you are doing and include me in the round. Remember, I am an educator FIRST. I love policy debate, which means that by default I like weighing measurable impacts vs intangible ones. While I do find the K arguments to be valuable negative tools, I rarely vote on the K alone unless the impact is just that compelling or there is a framework argument that demands me to re-evaluate my policy-making mindset.(Sorry, not sorry.) That does not mean that I rarely vote on T or on framework. I see those issues to have tangible impacts in the debate as they shape what should or should not happen. Using offensive language will earn you a quick loss (I don’t like it and I don’t tolerate it in my classroom). At the end of the round, I look at what issues were clear and the rationale behind them. I expect the debaters to explain why I should vote on something/ not just give me issues. As a result, I urge Negatives to pick their issues and Affirmatives to tell me a good clear story of why I should prefer the 1AC to whatever the neg argument is. I like when debaters compare the world of the affirmative vs the world of the negative. Have fun and be nice.

I prefer debaters stand and face me. I don't like debaters to turn their back on each other or stand over each other in the round (I know this is really not relevant in the virtual world of debate, but it does clue you in on how I feel about decorum in the round). I can usually keep up in a fast round, but I am finding myself more aggravated with the behavior of debaters than performance in the round. Maybe I am just feeling my age. Also, the whole flashing issue drives me nuts. I don't believe in giving extra prep time. Work out a system that is fair in the round to all. If you want to impress me, actually flow and listen to your opponents. I have been told by my own students that I give pretty good non-verbal indicators as to how I am feeling about the debate or issues in the round. Hint- it might help you to pay attention to those.

Bentonville West High School Speech & Debate Coach

I have been a coach and competitor in the forensics/speech/debate world for 20+ years. I specialize in speaking. Speaker points are important to me. Sloppy or disorganized speeches can cost you the round. Please don't just read to me. I want to see your speaking & delivery skills as much as I want to see your arguments. Make clear arguments and focus on line-by-line analysis. When it comes to splitting hairs for a win, I will go with the team with the best line-by-line argumentation.

Back your claims and counterclaims with solid cards. I'm an analytical thinker when it comes to debate rounds. I want to hear your claims back with more than your opinion.

I am a tab judge and willing to listen to any argument. However, don't kill a dead horse or bet your case on minuscule points. Support your claims with professional backing. Make your points clear and understandable. Make sure you link to the resolution.

I enjoy a clearly organized debate with strong signposting, road-maps, and line-by-line analysis. Organization is key to keeping the flow tidy as well as maintaining clash throughout the round.

PLEASE DON'T SPREAD IN PF & LD.Adapt your case structure/speaking style, to adhere to this request. I'm a speaker. I expect solid speaking skills. I can deal with fast speaking as long as you are clear. However, I'm a traditional judge. Don't spread in styles outside of CX. Just because I am a traditional judge does not mean I won't evaluate or vote up progressive arguments. They just better be good. :)

Be sure to read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution/framework. If I don't understand the argument itself or don't understand how it links, there is no way I can evaluate it.

You're not going to win rounds with me in cross. Just because you bring a point up in cross does not mean I will flow it. If you want it considered, bring it up in your rebuttal. Keep it professional. A true debater can give their points without sounding demeaning or disrespectful. It will cost you the round with me. Learn to disagree respectfully.

I am by no means a lay judge, but I judge PF & WSD rounds as if I am. Don't use debate jargon in these rounds. Speak to me as if I had never heard the word debate before. That's the design of these styles.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in any way. Be respectful to your opponent and judge. Use professional language at all times.

Email for chain: jskordal@bentonvillek12.org

This is your debate so have fun with it! Best of luck to you!!

Competed in Public Forum, Congress, Extemp, and WSD in high school 2014-2018. This will be my third year judging WSD nationals and am looking forward to seeing everyone debate.

The most fun rounds I have are the ones that address the heart of the motion and actively display critical thinking.

Please be friendly to your opponents.

Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

Please signpost! I will flow, so make sure to include the source name and year. Also, be nice to each other! Keep your own time.

Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history). I now coach LD, PF, Congress and Speech events and have had the pleasure of jumping into World Schools.

I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading in LD so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Not such a fan of PF speaking super quickly as that's not really the point of that event. Make good use of time but don't rush it. Outside of that in these events feel free to ask for any other concerns you may have. Happy to answer before a round starts.

Update on WSD: I do value the flow but also want to see WS norms happening in the round. Take POIs and engage with each other when time allows. I'm not a huge fan of first speech getting into refutation as two other speeches do that I would rather 1st speech take some POIs and develop your sides case. Please remember this is WSD US centric arguments happen based on the motion but I really value some international attention happening regardless of motion as I think it shows broader understanding of the World as a whole .Not to mention a countries decisions do not occur in a bubble and international events do impact other countries decisions, US included.

symonds77@gmail.com

I'm judging more often and tabbing less these days, so I thought it was fair to have a little substance here. I joined my high school debate team in 1991, and I've been coaching college (and a tiny bit of high school) since 1999. Along the way I worked on highly critical teams (CSU Fullerton) and thoroughly policy teams (USC). I've been the director at Arizona State since 2008. Anyway, this is how I judge:

(1) I have the speech doc open and I'm following along as you're reading cards

(2) I'm only ever listening to the speaker(s), I think it's really important not to be messing around with electronic media while judging.

(3) I'm constantly judging argument quality throughout the debate, so when the 2AR ends, 90% of the time I'm fairly certain who I am going to vote for. What time I spend looking over my flow and the evidence is used to think through the most likely questions from the losing team, to see if there's something that I might have missed.

(4) My general decision making process starts with impact calculus and impact comparison. If one side is decisively ahead here, this often controls my vote. 2NR and 2AR work here is vital.

(5) To decide key points of controversy in the debate, I identify each one from the final rebuttals, list them in the AFF or NEG column, then find the arguments from the responding team and line them up. Once I think the lists are complete, I choose which side persuaded me on each one.

(6) While I work hard to keep my (long list of) debate opinions out of debate in deference to the specific ways debaters make their arguments, I think it's only fair to list some of my abstract debate leanings so that you have more context/information:

--Everyone reading an aff related to the topic IS ideal for fairness, education, and research-based reasons, but simply listing off these buzzwords is not going to persuade me. And "related to the topic" is really case by case.
--On framework, education is more important than procedural claims - I regularly vote aff against framework bc the neg is overly fixated on "procedural fairness outweighs"
--Topical Versions of the Aff and Switch-Side debate arguments function like CPs that access AFF education and preserve fairness
--States CP is illegit bc it eliminates the literature-based debate over FG vs States
--CPs ought to be textually and functionally competitive
--Alts succeed by being deliberately vague and shifting later in the debate - especially "reject the aff" alts
--Both truth and techne matter

CARD-specific Paradigm
1. Role of the judge: While my first obligation is to decide which team wins the debate, the more important role I fulfill as a judge as the role of educator. Throughout the debate, I am taking note of areas to suggest improvements for all four debaters. I'll enter these notes in the tabroom ballot. I'm also assessing argument quality, to offer suggestions in the RFD and ballot. My hope is to contribute to your continued education on the topic and improvements as a debater.
2. CARD argument best practices: Consistent advocacy is important. Teams shouldn't be intentionally reading contradictory cause and effect claims in the 1NC with the idea that conditionality means they can pick the best strategy by the 2NR. So the carbon bubble and marxism k wouldn't be a great idea. That said, as long as the NEG is consistent, I am inclined to think that the AFF should always have to be better than the status quo, so I am ok with kicking an alternative or counterplan in a later speech to revert to the status quo as their advocacy.
Probability and timeframe often matter more than magnitude. The CARD library is limited to articles directly related to the topic, which means there aren't a bunch of articles dedicated to making terminal impact claims. As a result, comparing the likelihood, the comparative advantage, when consequences might happen, these are often a lot stronger than trying to make claims about the ultimate size of the impact.
Debate is about listening and engaging through the line by line. Being the best version of yourself as a student and debater means listening to the other side's argument, reading their evidence, writing down their point, and engaging in the line-by-line debate. Responding to each argument in turn provides the opportunity to make comparative assessments between your side's arguments and your opponents. The best competitors consistently offer these types of distinctions between arguments and evidence.
3.CARD norms: AFFs should be one of the four plan types listed in the resolution. Teams should only read evidence from the article library. Counterplans should be limited to the US federal government (resolutional actor). Kritik alternatives should either be implemented by the US federal government (resolutional actor) OR something enacted by the judge (reject the aff or adopt a particular political philosophy).
If teams think a norm is being violated, they should raise the issue in the debate, and I will evaluate it on a factual basis. This means that it is not a debate about interpretations from the aff and the neg, it is a judge decision to determine if the argument in question violates the expectations of the CARD format.
4. Thoughts on the climate change topic that might help you: AFFs should pay close attention to the claim that capitalism is the root cause of climate change. AFFs should also pay close attention to whether the NEG evidence is about their plan or about the status quo. NEG teams should strategize how they are going to answer permutations (especially from Transmission affs).

Hello! I'm one of the head coaches of the Bloomington HS Speech & Debate Team! My expertise is in congressional debate, public address, limited prep, and poetry. As such, I'm a sucker for ethos, pathos and logos. Please include your sources when making claims. Above all, I'm looking to BELIEVE the words you're saying, and that you're fully engaging in the debate. If you're furthering debate, you've got my attention. This isn't about what I think is right; it's about what you do with the docket in front of you. I will judge YOUR arguments (and who best communicates significance/impact), not what I think is the right argument based on my experiences. Lastly, please avoid personal attacks during cross examination and/or direct questioning.

UPDATED 6/17/2019 - Please prefer this one to the 1-9 ranking system previously entered.

About me: Former high school LD debater who has now returned to coach debate of all types. I actively coach LD and forum with some policy. I like stock issues and will vote on topicality if properly linked and impacted to crucial arguments.

Likes: Fewer more substantive arguments that are linked and impacted clearly on the flow with appropriate tagging and cross-applying where appropriate. This means DO NOT SPREAD! Debate is an educational activity so educate. Strong clash and refutation are must haves.

Dislikes: SPEED! Clarity is far more important. I will stop flowing if I can't understand or follow the argumentation and therefore will only vote on the arguments I have flowed. Heavy use of jargon. This is unnecessary and ultimately undermines the efficacy of your arguments. I absolutely detest Kritik's. If you are going to run one, ground it in real world outcomes and why it should be preferred to a topical resolution based argument. Don't just use it as a way to get out of facing the resolution.

Please be kind and courteous to others. Refutation can lead to high spirits which is fine, but please maintain decorum. Other than these things, I am pretty flexible. You do you and demonstrate the best argumentation possible.

Hello! Here are some things to know about me as your judge. I am in my twenty-fourth year of coaching and have brought competitors to Nationals for the past 12 years straight. My overarching paradigm in Speech and Debate is ethics. You need to be supportive of your fellow competitors in Speech events and respectful of your opponents in Debate. For the latter, focus on the actual debate (cross examinations) and show me that you really understand your opponent's case by asking specific questions about their evidence rather than trying to explain to me how their case doesn´t flow for some reason or another. Don´t give me voters - that´s my job. In Speech events, I´m looking for creativity and a true connection to the piece (whether you wrote it or someone else did). Lean into it, and own it. That´s what I´m looking for.

Thank you for all your hard work. Good luck to you!

Affiliation and Big Picture:

I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY.

I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.

Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.

Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.

I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.

K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.

DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.

Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.

Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.

Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is gswall97@gmail.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.

Competitors should hold themselves to a high standard of etiquette.

Reasonable arguments are the best kind of arguments.

Social justice is favored.

Your judge does not shake hands.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all (required):

The Hockaday School

Years Judging/Coaching (required)

24

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

22

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required)

Check all that apply

__X___I judge WS regularly on the local level

__X___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)

~50

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? (required)

Yes

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

Chairing means making sure everyone is present and ready, calling on individual speakers and announcing the decision. I usually announce the decision then ask the other judges to provide feedback before providing my own.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? (required)

WSD is what debate would be if people stopped the tactics that exclude others from the debate and arguments. The delivery and required clash of WSD means that there is no hiding from bad arguments or from good arguments.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? (required)

I flow on excel using techniques like other formats. I attempt to get as much of the details as I can.

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. (required)

It depends on the motion. On a motion that tends towards a problem-solution approach I will tend to prefer the practical, but on a motion that is rooted in a would or believes approach I tend towards the practical.

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? (required)

For me, strategy is how the speaker addresses the large clashes in the debate and compares those clashes for one another. For example, if the debate is about the efficacy of green patents I am looking for the speaker to address something that exists in the assumption that efficacy is good or bad.

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? (required)

I do that in the style section.

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? (required)

I tend to grant both claims as being true and then look to see if the claims are mutually exclusive. If they aren’t then I look at whether the teams advanced a burden/principle that supports their side. Included in this is an evaluation of whether a side has compared their burden/principle to the other team’s.

How do you resolve model quibbles? (required)

I don’t like to resolve these issue because they often revolve around questions of fact, which I can’t resolve in a debate where there are no objectively verified facts. I tend to go through the same process as I do when it comes to evaluating competing claims.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? (required)

First, I think both sides have the option to have a model or countermodel, but it is not required in the debate. Second, I think about the practical and the world each side creates. If a team is comparing their world to the world of the other team then I tend to follow that logic. Hopefully, both teams are doing this and then they are using their burden/principle to explain why their world is more important for me to vote for. One item that I tend to not enjoy is when teams treat models and countermodels as plans and counterplans and attack each other’s position without a comparison. Keep in mind that reasons the other team’s position fails are not reasons your position succeeds!

If I am judging you in an event other than WSD.

I am sorry, it has been several years since I have judged anything else but WSD. I do not subscribe to the technique over truth paradigm, nor do I want to listen to a mistakes driven debate. I want to see clash, not strategies geared towards avoiding/trapping the other side. Please do not spread, I will not flow that fast and I will not go back and reconstruct your speech using a speech document. Acts of exclusion will result in low points and possible loss of the ballot. I know this is a list of do not's rather than do's so I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

I am now the head coach for Lansing HS in Kansas. 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: willarddebate@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.

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Email: lemuel30034@gmail.com

I am open to judging debates in all forms and styles. However, I prefer debates where the role of the judge is explicitly defined by the debaters during the round. If you have questions about how I evaluate arguments, feel free to ask me.

General Preferences

• Top Level: I want to enjoy listening to the debate even if it is material or subject matter that is not in my wheelhouse. I like debaters with personality versus people that debate like robots. I tend err on the side of truth versus tech all things being equal. Most importantly, you should do what you do best and I will do my best to listen to what happens in the debate and make a decision .

• Argumentation: I will listen to most arguments but have reservations about theory arguments in LD. Topicality is a critical issue, and I approach it with the same caution and deliberation as a death penalty case.

• Topicality- I judge T debates like a death penalty case so I tend to vote aff in most T debates after careful thought. This means you better be sure before going for T.

• Framework: I understand and can adjudicate policy arguments, kritiks, counterplans, and disadvantages. I am more than willing to listen to arguments that challenge the norms of debate.

• Flowing: I flow debates most of the time, so clarity and organization in presentation are crucial..

• Decision-Making: I will vote for the team that provides the clearest and most coherent arguments by the end of the debate.Ultimately, my goal is to reward the team that engages in a thoughtful and logical debate while adhering to the expectations set within the round.

World Schools

I try judge worlds debates as an informed citizen. I value argument development down the bench. I also value a style that engages me as a member of the audience. I want debaters to explain my role as the judge in the debate and how I should make decisions. The debaters that do I great job at writing my ballot win with good points.

LD -

Framework ( Value/Criterion) is important, but so is the contention level debate. I way both sides when writing a ballot. I think LD is primarily a philosophical debate. You do not have to prove how something will be done just that it should be done. Saying that , claims of impacts should be supported with evidence or reasonable logic.
Be careful with your terminology I am an experienced coach and I know the difference between a disad and a solvency issue.
‘
Be careful if you are going super progressive. I firmly believe you should “Debatethe resolution”,not some random issue that you feel is more important. The entire Speech and Debate community voted on theses resolutions, so if you think you know better, you should provide a very good reason.
I appreciate creativity in your arguments, but stick with the resolution.

Policy - Although I am typically a more conservative (i.e. Stock issues) judge I am open to all forms of debate argumwents . I vote predominantly on clash and impact. Stock issues are a must and that includes topicality.

If you make arguments they must be linkked to your opponents case. If the link iis weak, it is going to be harder to win your argument if your opponent points that out. Extend your arguments thruout rebutttals and that inludes the Affirmative case.

I am OK with K's as long as you provide a viable link to your opponents case. See previous comment regarding links.

I am ok with speed as long as I can understand you. dont yell at me and dont wisper eithe. I f I cant understand you I dont folw you. If I don't flow the argument, it never happened.