I am the Co-Coach of Lincoln Park Academy.

I am a parent, a former high school & college debater, and presently a litigation attorney with my own law firm.

SPREADING:

I have tired of spreading over the years. I understand that it is pervasive in the National circuit, but in my view it is anathema to the benefits of high school debate. Spread at your own risk. If I am unable to jot down a contention, a card, etc., then IT IS AS IF YOU NEVER SAID IT. I want to hear what you are arguing and hear the elements of voice which aid in persuasion. Convince me; don’t talk past me or anyone else. Therefore, be careful of your speed - exceed understandable diction at your own risk.

OTHER HELPFUL POINTS:

I believe in sign-posting and the arguments which are being presented or refuted should be clearly identified. Also, I am more likely to be persuaded by arguments supported by evidence and/or a strong philosophical or moral underpinning (in LD), explained clearly and concisely, than on who seeks to overwhelm the other side with innumerable tangential points to address. I’ll ignore dropped points on less important contentions and focus more on the overriding key issues relevant to both Aff and Neg relating to the Resolution.

CROSS-EXAMINATION:

I look poorly on those who avoid answering questions directly during cross-examination (this is not politics and diversion or obfuscation does not score points). I also frown upon those who seek to monopolize cross-examination so as to minimize the number of questions which can effectively be presented. You should answer questions succinctly and directly with your strongest point, and this will go far in my analysis.

GAMES:

I disdain artificial mechanisms to win a debate round by surprising the opponent in an unfair manner against which they would not likely have prepared. I prefer a straight on affirmation and negation of issues directly related to the resolution.

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you.  It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

add me to the email chain boorboorariana@gmail.com

Background

I did majoritively PF in highschool with Congress mixed in. Currently a freshman at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Case/Rebuttal

Like both overreaching or stock arguments. Doesn't matter.

Warrants are important!!! If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but I highly suggest responding to offense in the first rebuttal (case turns and offensive overviews).

Offensive Overviews

I will only evaluate offensive overviews if they are read in first rebuttal. Case turns and general responses/defensive overviews are permitted in both rebuttals.

To clarify, don't run new contentions in 2nd rebuttal and call it an "Overview." I think this is unfair as it gives the first speaking team almost no time to respond.

Summary/Final Focus

You don't need defense in first summary unless there was frontlining in second rebuttal. You do need turns.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow. Give me 1-3 voters in final focus.

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh.

Evidence

I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or I absolutely need to make a decision based on conflicting evidence

Crossfire

I flow crossfire so don't waste time.

Be respectful.

Don't talk over each other. It will make both look bad and I can't hear.

Speaker Points (General)

I usually give around 28's to the losing team and 29's to the winning team. Do the stuff below to get closer to a 30.

How to get better speaks

Weigh and signpost well.

Effectively pull off a cool strategy I haven't seen before.

Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged. Just don't make fun of your opponents, unless y'all are tight in which case use discretion.

How to lose

Ay panini, don't you be a meanie. (seriously, if you're excessively rude you will lose)

cheat

Online Debate –

· just make sure I am awake before you start your speech.

· don’t go full speed. i can’t vote for you if i am missing every other sentence bc of the online format. i would slow down on important analytics, interps, cp texts (put them in the doc too if possible). i won't let you redo your speech, so maybe record yourself speaking so we can play it back if absolutely necessary.

· please lmk if there is anything i can do to make our online debate experience better

HELLO!!!!
I am a fairly new judge to debate.

I expect RESPECTFUL debate...the minute you get an edge to you and become aggressive toward the other team...I shut off and will cast my vote for the other team. It is SO IMPORTANT that we have a respectful exchange of ideas and debate those accordingly. I do expect there to be a clash of ideas...just not a clash of personality. Questioning is important.

I enjoy strong connection to your material and expect you to provide strong reasoning and support for the points you are bringing to the table. If you have to spell it out for me, please do so. Be meticulous in how you explain things for me so that I can follow what you are saying. ORGANIZATION to your delivery is the key.

Speed: I am NOT a fan of spreading so do NOT do it.

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.

I LOVE terrific cross-examination!!!

For all debate- I will pick a winner based on who best communicates the most logical arguments. When judging communication, I take into account speaking pace, clarity of delivery, and organization.

I am a parent judge and new to PF judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.

Lookout.. NEW JUDGE

Present your case to convince me (guy off the street). Present your case as if you were explaining it to someone who knows little about the topic.

Talk clearly and put some air between your words so I can understand what you're saying.

Please refrain from any advanced jargon because that will lose me.

I prefer fresh, live debate over aggressive, angry debate. Civility, people!

My son has been competing on the National circuit in LD for the past 3 years - I have judged at local tournaments. I am comfortable with more traditional formats and average speed.

Speaker points will be based off of both efficiency and decorum.

Hi! I competed in LD and policy in high school, and I've coached PF and LD since 2019. I'm a senior at Stanford studying Public Policy.

I try to insert myself as little as possible into the debate, so be thorough in your responses and weighing. I default to being a tech judge. Solid links are more important to me than extinction-level impacts.

I primarily competed in policy, so CPs and Ks are fine. However, I put a lot of value on the framework debate, and I find it to be really disappointing when framework is ignored in favor of poorly run progressive-style arguments.

You don't have to speak slowly, but just be coherent.

I will not flow any racist, classist, sexist, transphobic, etc. arguments, and your speaker points will be affected, so don't bother with them.

Please be polite. Don't speak over each other, don't make unnecessary digs, and give your opponent the benefit of the doubt where possible. Be welcoming to those who are typically excluded or underrepresented in debate.

I mainly did PF for 3 years in high school and I have also judged LD many times in the past. I would very much like it if you did some impact calc as it helps me a lot in knowing what to weigh more. Also, if you're planning on using speed and/or spreading, please send your case over to me so I can flow more effectively. Otherwise I can't guarantee everything will be flowed. I would strongly prefer if you can cross-time prep as well as speech times. If you're a progressive debater and you won't do traditional, strike me, it will make it easier for everybody. I will not hesitate to dock your speaker points if you are being unnecessarily rude, or if you are sexist, racist, or bigoted in any way.

Basically just don't make this overly convoluted and make it easy for me to flow the round and keep track of what I'm weighing. Good luck and I look forward to judging for you! :)

Background:

- I'm a parent judge (judge both PF and LD)

- I'm knowledgable about economics and international relations

Argument Preferences:

Keep it within the topic, don't try to skirt the main debate either. Explain philosophy thoroughly if you're going to do it

Use speed at your own risk--it's probably not a good idea.

Do weighing somewhere, arguments that intuitively are more probable are going to be considered more probable by me.

In terms of jargon, keep it to a minimum.

I am the coach of Advanced Technologies Academy.

Don't be rude and denigrating to your opponents. I am a truth over tech judge and I do not flow. I am an experienced judge and I listen well.

Make sure to watch your body language and facial expressions because I will mark speaking points. Along with this, also make sure to watch tone and the words used.

Please do not spread.

Hello,

I am a lay Parent Judge. I have judged a couple of local LD tournaments an year ago and watched a few events to get better at this.

Please go slow and explain your arguments well, so I can flow the round. I will not understand spreading so please warrant and read your lay arguments well.

I don't mind if you go fast but will ask you to slow down if needed.

Mutual respect is very important so please be amicable and respectful at all times.

Above all, lets have a good Debate!

Thank You!

Nora Jain

I have four years of judging experience at local and online tournaments. I will consider the following extensively:

Significance of value & value criteria and how these goals were met with your framework and argumentation.

How well a debater can prove the validity or invalidity of the resolution.

Communicate with clarity. If I do not understand an argument, I cannot consider it in my decision. I am fine with fast conversational pacing, but spreading is not okay.

Novel arguments introduced in the rebuttal will be disregarded.

Evaluation is based on debaters arguments and NOT personal bias.

I am a parent judge. This is not my first time judging a tournament, but I'm still a lay judge – please explain your arguments well and go slow. If I can’t hear or understand your arguments, I won’t be able to use them to evaluate the round.

Please do not say anything racist or offensive and be civil and kind to your opponent. If you are rude, I will take speaker points off. Explain, extend, and weigh your arguments.

I would appreciate if you could go a bit slower and make your arguments more understandable for me, as well as make it clear what you're advocating for. Make sure I know what you're actually arguing and impact it out.

I look at my flow and arguments more than performance and cadence or tone. It’s nice to speak clearly and persuasively, but I evaluate on arguments.

I wish to see you soon! Good luck with your rounds.

I believe that the most important part of a debate round is making sure to convince the judge. Normally I like to tell students that it is important to break down their arguments for a lei judge and leave things in simplest terms as they will not be able to weigh anything they don't understand. However if you have me as a judge you can run your K or theory with no worries. The most important thing about a round for me is making sure to be fair and as friendly as possible.

During flow I like to be sure to get down as many things as I think are important. This often includes taglines, supporting data, direct rebuttals, counter examples, and voters. I will write your refutes next to your opponents claim and vice versa to see who is hitting the flow and who is generically responding. I often find the more concise the response the more often it is effective at neutralizing an opponents claim. This next bit is important so it will be in bold and this is really, really, important. JUST BECAUSE YOUR POINT FLOWS FROM AC1 DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN BE DROPPED THE REST OF THE ROUND AND THEN GET BROUGHT UP IN VOTERS. Sorry for yelling but often I feel as though it takes 15 seconds away from a speech and makes one side look as though it is grasping at straws. Making sure to hit your flow is one thing but saying that a point has been dropped and adding importance to it while it has not been a focal point of your round gives off the energy that you are looking for anything to just get a point. It makes it appear as though you are more desperate than you might be and can hurt speaks especially if you are spreading and hope to just get all your points out there and then not address them again until the end the you are no different than your opponent in dropping your own case.

Moving on from that when using progressive debate make sure to provide an explanation of what you are doing so that I can address it in my ballot. I feel often times in more advanced novice rounds I see K's being run incorrectly and overall with your round it will always be more beneficial to explain how your point or argument helps your side. I think overall when it comes to the technical side of debate you are safe to use anything ( as long as its not abusive to the round or prevents discourse on the subject ) as long as you can justify using it during the round.

Yes you can do an off-time roadmap, yes you can keep your own time, and no I will not take off speaks for the position in which you debate. Do not talk during someone else's speech. During cross I like to get as many questions as possible though I understand plugging your own case as much as possible just try and help progress the debate and be respectful of your opponent. I don't flow cross so make sure to bring up something you addressed in cross or something you would like to refute. Lastly I have the official timer, once you hear it go off finish your sentence or phrase because I do want to know what you have to say but this is a quick finish not a 15 second grace period.

Overall be respectful to your opponent, make sure you are getting your points through to me, and don't try and mislead or misrepresent because I will call for cards and clarify what your opponent was saying if you misconstrue their argument. 30 speaks is not common but is achievable. Make sure to use all your time and try your best! Best of luck :)

I am an experienced traditional LD and PF judge. I prefer to focus on the substance of the debate while also focusing on end impacts while being mindful of your value and VC. I do not like progressive style and you would be taking high risk with spreading styles. If I can't understand what you are actually saying then I can't accurately judge your debate information. Good luck!

I am looking for the debaters to win on proof, intellectual debate and content.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

I am new to Lincoln Douglas debate. With this in mind I will only like traditional value based debate. I will only accept a truth testing burden do decide the round off of, simply put the affirmative has to prove the resolution entirely true as a categorical statement and the negative has to either prove the resolution entirely false or deny the affirmative the ability to prove it true, which ever debater is best able to fulfil their particular burden wins the round. If an argument is conceded than it is proven true by the other side, for example if your opponent states the sky is purple and you fail to refute it than for all purposes of the debate the sky is purple from then on.

Here are a list of things that I will not permit in the round

• Spreading of any kind (If I drop my pen and stop writing you should slow down)

• Progressive Lincoln Douglas, this includes theory, Ks, disads, CPs, etc.

• New arguments made in the last speech, the only exceptions are if you are providing more information for an argument already stated or you have to point out that another debater has sincerely done something abusive in the round (nothing petty)

Here are a list of things that I would like to see for the round

• Impacts, I should be able to understand why the argument MATTERS!!!!

• Evidence, most if not all arguments should be warranted by evidence if not self evident it will be rejected

• Clarity, if I don’t understand you than you can’t win it’s that simple

• Crystallization and voters stating how you better fulfill your side’s burden

• No “artificial” refutation, if you agree with something just don't restate it, for example, definitions, if not refuted I will assume you accept it

One final note is that I have a relatively strong conservative viewpoint so plan cases accordingly

Alison Manaker

Strath Haven

I am a parent judge who pays close attention to the quality of arguments and responses. No spreading, no tricks, no Ks, no theory, nothing circuit. Please speak at a conversational pace (be clear -- I'll call clear once before dropping your speaks). I want to hear logically constructed arguments with good quality evidence. No contrived extinction scenarios. I take detailed notes of arguments and responses, but I do not flow. No jargon. Truth>tech

Please have evidence! Please have good evidence. Please do explicit evidence comparison --- I, and you, will be much happier if you point out powertagged evidence, unqualified authors, and clearly explain why your studies and warrants are better than your opponents'.

Parent Judge

No spreading

No progressive arguments

One could consider me as both traditional parent judge and non-traditional parent coach. When it comes to experience, I have never participated in actual LD debate myself. However, I have a strong interest in philosophy, history and political science and have formal education in these subjects, even though I work as a physician. I am very much involved with coaching my daughter who participates in varsity LD debate. It means that I have spent some time on the topic that you are debating in front of me, and I am very well familiar with most of aff and neg arguments. I leave my opinions at home. However, it is your job as a debater to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Everything matters. You have to explain how you derived your values and criteria from the resolution, provide a framework, construct contentions which connect and re-enforce your framework, demonstrate superiority of your values and criteria via clashes and rebuttals. Non-traditional routes such as debate theory, disclosure, tricks, etc are fine but it will not grant you victory if it is your only strength in the round. You may talk as fast as you want but I have to be able to flow your round. I do not like spreading - it puts emphasis on your ability to talk fast ( perhaps beneficial to your potential career at auction (just kidding)) but takes away the essence of an interesting and constructive debate. If, in my opinion, you are talking too fast. I will let you know. I evaluate your speech skills and ability to think on your feet. You have to present yourself professionally and be courteous to your opponent. Throwing ideological labels and calling your opponent's arguments idiotic, racist, misogynistic, leftists, right-winged, etc will not win this debate. You have to prove your side. That is the point of LD debate. It is an honor to judge your round, and I take this job very seriously. Best of luck. I am looking forward to your debate.

I judge multiple formats of debate, so I will try to provide a baseline for each of events. You can always reach out with questions at glennprince3@gmail.com.

LD:

I think LD's continual move to a poor version of 1 on 1 policy debate is probably not for the best, but we are where we are. If you want a traditional V/C framework, great. If you want to have a plan, that's fine too. My background is policy debate, so it's not that I'm unable to evaluate these arguments, it is that I find that there are too many tricks, RVIs, and barely warranted theory arguments that debaters want me to vote for. I will not vote for those arguments unless they have a clearly articulated interpretation, violation, standards, and a voting issue.

Really, I love debate, but I don't like blippy, unwarranted, "crafty" arguments. If your strategy is dependent on tricks or badly formulated theory arguments, strike me. Also, I won't vote on disclosure theory. I find I won't be offended.

I do believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution, but when you are negative you can do whatever you want that negates in whatever way that means to you.

Most importantly, have fun, say smart things, and I'll do the best to evaluate the debate you present to me.

PF:

Most important note: If it doesn't appear in summary, it won't be evaluated in final focus.

2nd important note: I prefer FULLY cut cards over paraphrasing. I find that too many cases are a series of citations without warrants. I'm a great judge for you if you cut cards that have warrants. I'm a less than great judge for you if you think stringing together 10-15 word "cards" makes a fully developed argument. Also, tag lines are your friend. All of your evidence should have a tagline.

Having said that, I think the rate of speaking should be moderate to moderately fast. I'm not sure what you are accomplishing in PF with anything faster. If your opponent asks you to slow down, you should make reasonable accommodations to that request. You can look to me to see whether or not I think the team making the request is being ridiculous.

The pro should feel free to affirm the resolution in whatever way you'd like as long as you are actively talking about the resolution.

If you only have defense in the debate, it will be difficult to win my ballot. For example, on the Medicare for All topic, the negative has to prove that the affirmative makes the world worse in a world where it were to become law.

Other than that, be sure to start narrowing the debate in summary. I prefer more line by line until the Final Focus, but I understand that many people will start weighing in summary. That's fine, but your summary should NOT just be weighing.

POLICY: I'm fairly old school when it comes to this event. I think the affirmative should probably be an example of the actual resolution, although kritikal affs are welcome. I was more of a DA/CP debater, so take that for what it is worth. On the negative, feel free to do whatever you want because I think that's the freedom you get being negative. On specific arguments:

Topicality: I don't think you have to prove abuse to win. You can just prove that they aren't topical. Whoever wins the interpretation controls the direction of this debate.

CP: I think everything is conditional, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You can run multiple Cps if you'd like. Have fun.

K: I think if you are running on the aff that it should still be a discussion of the topic. On the neg, I think you should indicate and make as many links to the affirmative as possible and make those known in the most meaningful way possible.

Besides the affirmative being topical even when kritikal, I'm not quite the dinosaur I may appear. You should have fun and make arguments and I'll do my best to evaluate them.

I am an attorney, so I value a well-thought out argument that flows logically. Lincoln Douglas debates focus on social and morality issues. A strong debate will focus on the issues and use facts to support those issues. Poignant facts woven into a well-crafted argument are more persuasive than a myriad of facts dumped into an otherwise unconvincing argument. Respect for your opponent, the judge, yourself, and the process in general is paramount.

About me: I competed LD and extempt for 4 years in high school and was captain of LD for my team. However, it has been a long while since then. I am a recent law school grad so, as you can guess, I appreciate a good argument!

Regarding my "paradigm":

1. I do not love “progressive” arguments, and find most off-topic. I think they cheat the real purpose of debate and I don’t recommend running them with me. It is more important to me that you address the actual issue of the case. If you do a "progressive" argument I will be able to follow and there will be no bias against your case. Your arguments need to make sense, logic needs to be applied, and truthful evidence must be given no matter what arguments you run.

2. Please try not to "spread". I understand speaking fast is necessary at times, but I should be able to comprehend everything you are saying. If you feel compelled to spread I can understand and follow along, for the most part; but, when you become unintelligible I will sit back and cross my arms to indicate that I am not following. On a related note PLEASE DO NOT GISH GALLOP, I will not tolerate it.

3. Evidence must be carried throughout the round, if your opponent doesn’t negate your evidence, make that clear to me and carry it throughout. Be careful to not accidentally drop your own evidence by forgetting to mention it again. The same goes for any arguments made.

4. I will not flow cross-x, if something important is said it is your responsibility to bring it to my attention.

5. Define everything, do not assume I know simple or related terms pertaining to the case. It would be best to assume that I do not know anything about your topic.

6. Framework/outlining is important. You must have a clear value and value criterion, you must apply it to all of your arguments made in the round and uphold it at the end, I should be able to tell what contention/subpoint you’re speaking about and all of your separate points.

7. I appreciate strong emphasis on the value and value criterion. I think an important part of LD debate are the moral philosophies of the issue, including their related aspects. Of course I still expect evidence to be used to support said value and value criterion.

8. I expect civility and respect within the round. There will be no racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, ethnocentrism, belittling of your opponent, or personal criticism of your opponent. If you display any of these actions I will no longer listen to you or your arguments.

9. Speak clearly. Don't forget to enunciate!

10. The debate will be weighed on whose arguments and framework were the most clear, consistent, logical, and carried throughout the round. Please remember these rounds are to be civil, if throughout the round you are badgering your opponent and making personal attacks you will not win.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask before the round!

Judge Preferences:

I believe the debate should be on topic. Arguments should be logical and evidence should be truthful. It is important that you address your opponent's contentions. It is also important that you do not forget to maintain your own.

I won't flow cross-x.

Framework is important. You should have a clear value and value criterion.

Speak clearly and understandably. Do not speak so quickly that I can't follow what you are saying.

The debate will be weighed on whose arguments and framework were the most thoughtful, clear, consistent, and carried throughout the round.

Hey y'all, my name is Colin, I did traditional ld for 4 years in high school and now attend Duke.

Please no progressive arguments or spreading, I will drop you. Keep the jargon to a minumum. I don't know what a counterplan is.

I highly prefer debaters who speak at a slow conversational and clear pace.

I also like to see more original analysis and voter issues.

I didn't flow as a competitor and I won't start now.

Please be respectful to each other in the round and remember to have fun.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask in the round.