I have judged a number of events including PF, LD, CX, and Speech. I consider myself a more Traditional Judge who values the educational experience of this activity and would rather judge actual clash in a round than having to weigh for you.

LD:

As mentioned above, I am a traditional judge and I need to see clash in a round.

I do not tolerate disrespect and if you can't respect me or your opponents, you are almost certainly guaranteed to lose the round.

Values Debate:

You can run whatever you want in your framework, but I need to see the logic behind what you're running. Even if the VP is as simple as Morality, tell me why you win.

If there is no VP clash, and the VPs are the same, rather than just set the VP as the set premise for the round, tell me why your opponents view of Morality/Justice/etc. is flawed and why you uphold it better. Go ahead with defining it but I would rather see why it is important.

Value Criterion debate is probably the most important section on the flow for me. If the criterions are the same what I mentioned before still applies. Make sure you extend the debate across the flow or else I have no choice to vote for your opponent. Additionally as you establish your framing as the established values for the round, make sure you carry it through with you across the speech.

Argument Debate:

Same thing as the values, I need to see the logic behind your arguments. I couldn't care less how you structure your contentions, make it easy for me to flow. Subpoints are definitely ideal when writing a case, and emphasize your taglines. I value Truth > Tech, I recognize the abstraction in LD so I'll believe what you say as long as the logic you provide justifies your warrant.

Sign posting is extremely important and make sure you number your responses when you begin to break down the case. Impact your arguments out!

Impact Debate:

All your arguments should have an impact to them or else there was no point for me to listen to what you just said, therefore when you go to your final speech you can give proper impact-calc that makes it easy for me as a judge to weigh.

In the era of progressive debate I tend to see impacts either be existential (we're all gonna die) or just we couldn't care less about this problem x, y, and z are happening and therefore who cares about nuclear arsenals and standardized tests.

Impacts for me need to be logical and weighable, and don't make me scratch my head for 15 minutes wondering how I'm supposed to consider this.

Hello, my name is Porter (he/him). I did debate for three years in high school and I’m working on my economics and legal studies degree from Weber State. I did almost every event in debate, but my main focus was on Policy. It’s been a bit of time since I was involved with organized debate, so I would appreciate it if you’d take it easy on me. However, I’ll do my best to keep up if taking it easy isn’t your game.

Regarding speech or argument construction, I won’t be bothered if you do or don’t organize yourself in a particular way. Please just do whatever makes you feel most comfortable. I have a few notes below about specific argument types and styles.

Arguments

I’m cool with any argument you want to run, but here’s some specifics if you care to read

AFF – PLEASE spend more time on the link chain. I’m down to flow extinction or nuclear war or whatever your impact is but make the link impenetrable. Too often I see teams with big impacts but weak links. I’ll vote high-probability/low-impact over low-probability/high-impact.

CP - I loved running CP's and PIC's in high school, but if we're being honest, I've forgotten most of that specific technique. Don't be afraid to run one, though. I'll do my best to keep up.

DA - DA’s are essential for the 1NC (Unless it clashes with your k or whatever). I like specific DA’s that have strong, clear links to the 1AC. If I can tell it’s just a really generic link chain then I might get a bit bored with it. Run what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up.

K - K's are cool. That's about all I ran in high school. If it's a particularly obscure or complex K, I would appreciate clear and concise explanations. Creative k’s may be the best way to win my ballot. K AFFs are fine, just do it well. Again, establish links.

Theory – I loved theory in high school, but again, I may have forgotten much of the structure and information behind the arguments. I still think it’s super interesting. If your opponent runs theory, I don’t expect you to respond with theory, just respond to their interp with a counter interp and respond to ALL of their warrants. I don’t care if you have cards in your theory arguments, it’s not going to impress me if you do but it’s not going to lose you any favor if you don’t.

Topicality – If T is your thing, go for it. Respond to opponent's interp and give a counter interp and extend the impacts.

General notes

-Please add me to the email chain, porterarchibald1@gmail.com

-If there is anything that I can do to make you more comfortable let me know and I’ll do my best to help you out.

-I’m big on the line-by-line, if you win the line-by-line you’ll likely win (unless you did something offensive or rude). Extend your arguments and make sure to point out what arguments the opponent dropped.

-You need a framework. If you don’t have a framework, I can’t judge the round through what lens you want me to. If your opponent has a framework and you don’t, I’ll default to theirs. If neither of you have a framework I’ll default to a cost-benefit analysis.

-Death is generally bad but I could be convinced otherwise

-I don't mind aggressive or heated debates. I don’t see any problem with you raising your voice, this is a game so you should try to win, however I draw the line once it becomes personal and you attack your opponent personally. Automatic loss for doing so.

-I don't mind laid-back debates. However, I do expect some level of professionalism and respect.

-Please don’t make me sit through a two-hour definition debate.

-Sending files isn’t prep but don’t be egregious.

-I don't flow cross-x, but I do pay attention. If you want something that was brought up in cross-x to be on the flow you need to extend it into one of your speeches.

-Please have fun with this. I know how boring and mundane debates can get so don’t be afraid to have fun.

-I’m cool with progressive or traditional debate.

-NEG doesn’t need to flow the 2AR, I won’t think you’re being rude or unprofessional.

-I’ll vote on anything, just explain why something is or is not a voter in the round

-I’ll disclose if you, your opponent, and the tournament are okay with it. If any of those parties are not okay with disclosing, just email me or if you see me feel free to ask.

If you have any questions about me, my paradigm, RFD, critiques, or anything else just send me an email and I’d be happy to explain a little further.

Good luck!

Overview Stuff:

She/They

Hi, I’m Aphe Astrachan (Aphe pronounced aff-ee). I debated at Durham Academy for two years, and am currently a sophmore at Duke University. I experienced a fair amount of success on both the local and the national circuit, so although I tend to prefer more progressive forms of argumentation, I’m still open to your standard value/value criterion debate. Yes, I want to be on the email chain: aa424 at duke dot edu. I want to be on the email chain regardless of whether or not you’re spreading- it’ll save me time if I have to call for evidence, and it’s the only real way I have to see if you’re miscutting cards. Record your speeches, we're not doin speech redos. Also please stop saying stuff like "my time starts on my first word," it's annoying, patronizing, and makes you look like a dweeb.

March/April 22 specifics:

I am big fan of epistemological arguments on this debate, especially critiquing or supporting dialectically constructed standpoint epistemologies.

Quick Prefs:

Larp/Theory/Topicality : 1

Postmodernism K’s: 2 (with the exception of Baudrillard 1, and queer futurism/rage/pess : 1)(I've probably read your lit)

Non postmodern K’s: 3

Identity K's: 2

Phil: 2-3

Tricks: 5.

Cliffnotes:

Howdy folks. I try to be tech over truth in all instances, but that doesn’t mean I hold the same threshold of argumentation for everything. I have especially low thresholds for answering a-prioris, truth-testing, and anything which is clearly untrue. I’m willing to vote off of anything with the exception of racist/ableist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic… arguments. Also on this: Don’t read identity cases if you’re not the identity being represented in case (with the exception of you reading a card at the top of case which makes an argument for why you should be able to read it). My favorite form of debate while I was debating was LARP with healthy doses of theory and topicality mixed in: I’ll vote off of exempted or paragraph theory, but please send analytics if your opponent asks for them. Although it wasn't my favorite while I was debating, I think that introduction to critical literature is the most important thing which debate actually achieves, and thus value K's highly. I didn't run too many K's as a debater but I've read an extensive amount of postmodern theory and should be able to understand most arguments made in most K's. I default to a comparing worlds paradigm, and if you don’t present any framework in round I’ll assume we’re having a nice wholesome util debate.

ALSO

Although I love doing LARP debate, I think that problem of induction is a really good arg against it, and will definitely evaluate it. I highly encourage debaters going up against LARP cases that aren't running a LARP case themself to at least run it as a one off because it's currently a glaring hole in the middle of most debates that isn't paid enough attention to. Especially phil v Larp rounds please give it a shot, preferably not Hume's version :P

More in depth stuff:

LARP: Hell yeah. This is the good stuff right here. For most of my Debate career, policy/LARP arguments were my bread and butter. I love fun/spicy plans/counterplans, and will vote off of most any type of plan/counterplan. I have nothing against agent cps, delay cps, consult cps, or anything else of the like. If you’re running a plan aff, still be prepared to answer topicality. Just because I think it’s topical doesn’t mean you no longer have the burden to prove you’re topical. I really enjoy arguments that I haven’t seen before, and am always willing to talk about geo-engineering after the round. All of that being said, be prepared to answer argumentation that calls fiat into judgement, and I will accept that none of your plan actually occurs even post fiat given the proper argumentation.

Theory/Topicality: Also a huge fan of these forms of arguments. I’ve been known to extempt and collapse on theory, often going for what others might call frivolous theory. I’ll vote on anything with paradigm issues and voters, so make sure you tell me in the theory shell how I or your opponent should deal with it. Same thing goes for topicality. I’m not a huge fan of Nebel-T, but that hasn’t stopped me from winning rounds on it. Go for the RVIs too, those debates are often exciting and get into meta-theory really quickly, which I personally like. Yet again, I have a high threshold for arguments like “evaluate the ____ after the ______,” but won’t just drop them on face.

Tricks: Aight boiz, here’s where things get kind of tricky. Tricks, unfortunately, are real arguments, and I, unfortunately, will vote off of them. With that being said, if your form of tricks is running twenty different spikes layered throughout case, I’m probably not the judge for you. Spikes are ableist, and unless you say “spikes on the bottom,” and proceed to put spikes on the bottom, I’ll have a super low threshold for answering any of the spikes, and will heavily dock your speaks for it. However, I also think tricks can be really fun. Nail-bomb cases and fun theory or pre fiat offense is always fun, whether it be solving a rubick’s cube or doing Tik-Tok dances for the ballot.

K’s: Go for em, run ‘em. I’m most familiar with afropess/wake work/queer futurity/queer pess/queer rage/Baudrillard/Set-Col/Hauntology/Libidinal economy stuff/Necropolitics/Gillespie/Most epistemological or metaphysical applications on ontology and am currently reading D+G, but don’t let that stop you from running your K. Regardless if I’m familiar with your K or not, you still have to explain it fully in round. I won’t vote off of something that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. I honestly don’t really get what the difference between the role of the judge and the role of the ballot is, but go for it anyway, just explain it please :) (also K's have real world ramifications feel free to LARP about those if you want idc)(Edelman> Muñoz).

Phil: I enjoy philosophy a lot outside of debate, and am always open to talk about it. That being said, I’m not the biggest fan of phil arguments in round. Things can get really nitpicky, and people end up yelling at one another about how human evolution dictates emotion, and often stumble into making arguments that are perturbing at best and eugenicist at worst. Yet again, if you like em, go for em. Just explain them. I’m probably familiar with any philosopher you’re reading, even if it’s postmodern. Hegel is annoying. Locke and Kant are both ableist, and Kant is racist, but you can still run em if you want. Please read problem of induction against LARP cases its such a good arg that functions as terminal defense.

Speed stuff: I haven't debated in a hot minute, but I've been doing spreading drills every now and again just cuz. I should be able to understand you just fine, but if my comprehension skills are more rusty than I think, I will call clear twice before I stop flowing. That being said, you should be good for anything speedwise.

Speaks: I think I give decently high speaks most of the time, but also am not scared to give 25s because of violence in round. I start round at a base level of a 28, and go up or down from there. +.1 speaks for using pog in round B)

Misc. Im always down to talk about whatever before round starts if we're just waiting for something to happen, so here are some of my interests: Music (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7pdYJ8smYJSsOCMinuGEL4?si=111f1dc5e0a94d33), postmodern philosophy, drain gang, yeule, lamp, blue period, JJBA, communism, One Piece, bein trans. Also, if you ask me for my email im going to assume you havent read my paradigm, cuz its in here.

Hi! I competed in LD all four years of high school mostly in local circuit debate in Oklahoma, Virginia, and North Carolina. I dabbled in Nat circuit stuff throughout but high key did not enjoy it. I prefer traditional style LD, but I also understand most of the progressive stuff so don't feel like you have to change your style if that's what you're comfortable with. I'm good with all speeds, talk as fast as you want but presentation is important so only speak fast if you do it well. I like a clean flow. Please present rebuttals in the order of the flow and I highly encourage sign posting. My biggest pet peeve is debaters who try to belittle and degrade their opponent. If you are good, there is no need to be arrogant or rude, let your arguments do the work. Respect is key y'all. I weigh framework and value clash really heavily as I prefer trad LD so please emphasize that a lot throughout the round. Explain why you should win based off of your framework and make sure you include it in your voting issues. ~Also~ if your arguments or language are in any way racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or inherently discriminatory I'm gonna vote you down so ya don't do that.

I debated in LD for the last three years of high school, and I am in my second year of college. I also went to a few tournaments in PF, so I do have a background in both. Additionally, I went to many local, state, and national tournaments and did debate both traditional and progressive

Arguments: I am cool with you running any arguments you want. My favorite is LARP arguments, but I will evaluate anything you read. That being said, I also do not know the literature well myself so you really have to do the work and explain not only your argument but how it interacts with your opponent’s; don’t just use buzzwords. It is really important you weigh and consistently tell me why you’re winning the round.

Structure: I am fine with any speed and if you are spreading make sure to flash the case and all turns/blocks you read while clearly sign posting. For taglines, authors, rebuttals, and anything you ad lib make sure you are clear and slow down. I’ll say clear if I can’t hear you. If I don’t hear what you say I can’t evaluate it.

Etiquette: Needless to say, be respectful. The debate should be a fun space so if you want to be funny or sarcastic during cross-ex or can make me laugh that’s always good, an extra speaker point if you do (but don’t feel like you need to!). I’m fine with progressive arguments if both debaters agree, but I do not like when your opponent has not clue what is happening and you’re going four off. It does not make for a debate round if you cannot interact.

Side note: I really look at each debate as an opportunity to grow and learn. So please talk to me after if you have any questions, want more feedback, or want to talk about college. A lot of y’all are either going to apply to college or just did and that can be a stressful time, especially with debate. I go to Brown University in the eight year medical track; so if you want to talk about college life in general, or if you’re applying (or already did apply) to Brown, or are interested in medicine, I’d be happy to.

About me: I competed in traditional Lincoln Douglas Debate in high school for the Brecksville-Broadview Heights Talking Bees. I also competed in NFA LD (progressive LD/one person policy) in college at Capital University. I graduated from Capital with a degree in philosophy and am now in law school at Case Western Reserve University. I have experience in both traditional LD and policy and am willing to adjudicate either style (unless there are tournament rules against it).

Debate: In general: I am a very Tabula Rasa Judge. I am not going to intervene for or against you. I am going to vote for the person who proves that they can best achieve the prevailing framework. That means you need to prove your contentions AND you need to prove that those contentions achieve the prevailing framework.

Framework:

I have a background in philosophy, so I love good framework debate. To win the framework debate you should prove why your value is better or should be prioritized before your opponent's. Using good philosophical/moral reasoning will get you higher speaker points in front of me. However, I also find that in most cases both teams have almost the same value (ex. societal welfare defined as the greatest good for society and utilitarianism defined as the greatest good for the greatest number of people) - in these cases I would MUCH prefer that you just agree on the value and argue about who achieves it the best - unless you have a good explanation as to why the values are different. I find that usually when values are this similar framework debates become about "well X value is only good because it achieves my value which is better" vs "well you need my value to achieve X value so mine is better" and that really doesn't help me make a decision. I also am a big believer that you do not need to win your own framework to win the debate. I am happy to vote for you if your opponent wins framework and you prove that you achieve their framework better than they do.

Contentions/Evidence:

I am going to generally assume what you say is true unless your opponent calls it into to question. So, if you tell me "the sky is green" and your opponent never refutes it I would vote assuming that it was true.

I love good evidence debate but I hate bad evidence debate. When you and your opponent have conflicting evidence, I need to hear analytics as to why your evidence is better or else the point is moot. I will not do the work here for you. You can't just say, "My opponents card says X but my card says X is false, so X is wrong." You need to explain why your evidence is better and give me good reasons. If you're going to tell me your evidence is more recent - tell me why that's important, if you're going to say your author is an expert explain why your opponent's author isn't as good.

Please do some impact calculus. Explain why your argument is upholding the prevailing value the most and why it achieves the framework better than your opponents. If you are each doing really well on one argument, I am going to need a way to determine which one to prioritize and I and I don’t want to have to make that decision for myself (and if I have to I am going to dock you both speaker points). For example, if the value is justice and you’re arguing that your opponent’s case will lead to nuclear war and your opponent says your case is going to collapse democracy you must explain to me why nuclear war is worse for justice than the collapse of democracy.

Notes for progressive LD:

Speed- I am personally fine with spreading (fast talking) however I do not like when its used to exclude people, especially on the high school level. I will absolutely dock you if your opponent is obviously not comfortable with spreading and you do it anyway. In general, if the tournament has a lot of traditional LD I expect you to ask your opponent if spreading is okay before you do it.

Kritik – I haven’t judged a ton of progressive high school LD so I’m not sure how popular K’s are here but I am willing to listen to them. However, I was never a big K debater and I am not terribly familiar with all the K lit which means you will have to explain it well if you want me to vote on it. If I don’t understand what the alternative does and how it solves, I’m probably not going to vote for you. I also expect you to make a fair attempt to explain it to your opponent especially if they are clearly from a more traditional LD background. I will probably dock your points if I sense that you’re being purposely unclear or intentionally using jargon that your opponent clearly doesn’t understand.

Procedurals: I’m also not sure how common these are in high school. However, in college NFA LD I was a big fan of procedurals. I think that, when done well, they’re great for critical thinking. I will also be tabula rasa here. If you want the standard to be proven abuse you better argue about why proven abuse is necessary, same thing with potential abuse. If you want me to vote on the rules, you should be giving me a reason that the rules are good. If the procedural is creative and well done it will be a speaker points boost in front of me. Again, however because this is high school, I am still going to pay attention to if the procedural and jargon therein is clearly being used to exclude your opponent. If you are facing someone from a traditional background you should not being using jargon, speed, etc. to exclude them from the round. That’s bad for education and a really slimy way to try to win that’s probably not going to work in from of me.

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.

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over (e.g. FL, D.C., Korea, China, Uganda).

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

* Big Questions

No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

Most of my experience judging BQ was in 2020 when Nationals was online. I approach BQ like a less flow-centric traditional LD round and the person who most clearly frames and resolves the "big question" will win the round, regardless of the flow. Each debater should aim to do that. I like this event and love the current topic. I wish BQ Debate were more mainstream outside of NSDA Nationals. FYI: I have above average knowledge on world religion and the history of science, but I will only use what you tell me in round.

* LD Prefs

I'm best at adjudicating traditional LD rounds. However, I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If it's getting debate on fw is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else.

Slow down on card tags, warrants, weighing, and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Don't drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

In order of preference:

1.) Trad/lay 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4 times and I've judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of the tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.

* PF Prefs

Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. I believe the spirit of PF necessitates a less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This ultimately lacks both in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 22 years and there are going to be different ways to gain in round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is not only arrogant, but also wrong. I've witnessed 1,000+ debate rounds and seen poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On Speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + allthe judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I've heard my share of theory arguments and find the majority of those rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. : (

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all 3 are part of effective argumentation)

* Congress Prefs

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Reading at top speed, close to top speed, or 200+ wpm for most of the round.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )

Academic Interests:

I teach AP World History, AP European History, and AP Microeconomics on the high school level. I teach various business courses at the university level.

Topics in which I have some specialized knowledge include: world religions, modern history, organizational culture, business management, and law.

Good luck to all!

Email Chain: megan.butt@charlottelatin.org

Charlotte Latin School (2022-), formerly at Providence (2014-22).

Trad debate coach -- I flow, but people read that sometimes and think they don't need to read actual warrants? And can just stand up and scream jargon like "they concede our delink on the innovation turn so vote for us" instead of actually explaining how the arguments interact? I can't do all that work for you.

GENERAL:

COMPARATIVELY weigh ("prefer our interp/evidence because...") and IMPLICATE your arguments ("this is important because...") so that I don't have to intervene and do it for you. Clear round narrative is key!

If you present a framework/ROB, I'll look for you to warrant your arguments to it. Convince me that the arguments you're winning are most important, not just that you're winning the "most" arguments.

Please be clean: signpost, extend the warrant (not just the card).

I vote off the flow, so cross is binding, but needs clean extension in a speech.

I do see debate as a "game," but a game is only fun if we all understand and play by the same rules. We have to acknowledge that this has tangible impacts for those of us in the debate space -- especially when the game harms competitors with fewer resources. You can win my ballot just as easily without having to talk down to a debater with less experience, run six off-case arguments against a trad debater, or spread on a novice debater who clearly isn't able to spread. The best (and most educational) rounds are inclusive and respectful. Adapt.

Not a fan of tricks.

LD:

Run what you want and I'll be open to it. I tend to be more traditional, but can judge "prog lite" LD -- willing to entertain theory, non-topical K's, phil, LARP, etc. Explanation/narrative/context is still key, since these are not regularly run in my regional circuit and I am for sure not as well-read as you. Please make extra clear what the role of the ballot is, and give me clear judge instruction in the round (the trad rounds I judge have much fewer win conditions, so explain to me why your arguments should trigger my ballot. If I can't understand what exactly your advocacy is, I can't vote on it.)

PF:

Please collapse the round!

I will consider theory, but it's risky to make it your all-in strategy -- I have a really high threshold in PF, and because of the time skew, it's pretty easy to get me to vote for an RVI. It's annoying when poorly constructed shells get used as a "cheat code" to avoid actually debating substance.

CONGRESS:

Argument quality and evidence are more important to me than pure speaking skills & polish.

Show me that you're multifaceted -- quality over quantity. I'll always rank someone who can pull off an early speech and mid-cycle ref or late-cycle crystal over someone who gives three first negations in a row.

I reward flexibility/leadership in chamber: be willing to preside, switch sides on an uneven bill, etc.

WORLDS:

Generally looking for you to follow the norms of the event: prop sets the framework for the round (unless abusive), clear intros in every speech, take 1-2 points each, keep content and rhetoric balanced.

House prop should be attentive to motion types -- offer clear framing on value/fact motions, and a clear model on policy motions.

On argument strategy: I'm looking for the classic principled & practical layers of analysis. I place more value on global evidence & examples.

Current School Affiliation

Chair, Depart of English, Elkins High School

Education Entrepreneurship Graduate Student, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education

Speech & Debate Program Coordinator, Randolph County Schools

Elkins High School (Elkins, WV)

2016-present

Elkins Middle School (Elkins, WV)

2019-present

Experience as a Competitor

I did not participate in speech and debate activities until I was in college. The program at Davis & Elkins College was primarily focused on public debates and less so on competitive speech and debate. My time at D&E lead me to see the value of debate to shape and improve public discourse. Additional details about my experience are below.

Davis & Elkins College (2013-2016)

Public Debate (debates on campus and in the community, Madison Cup @ James Madison University, iDebate Rwanda)

College Forensics Association (Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, Poetry Interpretation, Prose Interpretation, Communication Analysis, Informative Speaking, After Dinner Speaking, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu Speaking)

Lincoln-Douglas Philosophy

Overview I'm a traditional coach in a traditional circuit that has a general knowledge of progressive LD. However, I am willing to accept CPs, DAs, and Ks, but please be mindful of your opponents/judges ability to adapt. However, I am not likely to vote on theory arguments unless the violation is very abusive.

Speed I'm cool with speed, but be aware of how technology impacts how you are heard.

TL;DR I vote on impact. I want to hear why your argument matters. I will give preference to the debater that does the best job of showing the impact of negating or affirming the resolution.

General Debate Philosophy

1. I judge on impact. Tell me why your argument matters.

2. Create strong links between your claims and your evidence.

Short Version:

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

Full Version:

Judging Style:

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

Speaks:

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

Speed:

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

Flashing:

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

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

Ks

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

DAs

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

Theory:

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

Flex Prep/CX:

I will not allow the use of flex prep.

General Comments:

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

Name: Matt Davis

Affiliation: St. Croix Prep, Stillwater, MN

Email: mdavis@stcroixprep.org

Years Coaching: 11

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; otherwise, I feel like this is a tough area for me to validate. 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 enjoy 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, I dislike impact turns on kritiks, and these usually come across to me as supercharged links to the kritik. That being said, I would strongly suggest you avoid trying to impact turn a kritik. Link debates and alternative debates are much more persuasive.

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, MIC, PIC, IR, Borders. However, if you can explain the kritik to me in more cogent terms, I am willing to entertain other kritiks.

Fifth, if you are running a kritik, try to slow down a little. 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. Be better. 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 have judged LD for a year. I will look for good, strong arguments with good warrants and impacts. By speaking a little slower, clearly, and precisely, it will help with my decision.

About me: I competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate for 3 years for Northwest Guilford High School. I’ve qualified to NCFL Grand Nationals and reached Semifinals at Durham Academy My senior year. Currently a senior at Duke University. My pronouns are he/him/his

Conflicts: Northwest Guilford High School

Speed: I can handle a pretty brisk conversational pace, but keep in mind that the pace you choose to speak at directly trades off with me (and your competitor’s) ability to truly understand and write down what you are saying. I have zero experience with fast, nat-circuity type debate, so spreading is probably not the move. Slowing down at tags/authors/any important point you want to emphasize will go a long way towards making you more understandable and persuasive, and your speaks will show. If you speak fast in front of an inexperienced debater, expect speaks to suffer. If you are competing in an activity that focuses on engaging with competing ideas, why would you want to shy away from clash? Hiding arguments is not fun and makes debate a waste of time.

Framework: Framework matters as much as you’d like it to. Being marginally ahead on the V/VC Debate only matters if you explain the implications of your framework, and why it should inform my ballot. Your impacts should relate back to your framework, if they don’t Then I’m gonna be confused. Franework debates were my favorite as a competitor, yet it feels like almost nobody cares about framework these days. With that thought in mind, A well though out, creative framework that effectively advances your position will go a long way towards earning my ballot. Stock philosophies are great and have a lot of educational value, but I’d challenge you to think of something original and put your own creative spin on these philosophical issues. Debate is an educational activity after all; show me that you’ve really contemplated the topic and not just read about how 400 year old Englishmen thought about the topic.

Theory/T: I understand how theory/T works. That being said, I rarely ever engaged in this type of debate in high school. If you feel your competitor is being abusive, feel free to read it; I’ll do my best to evaluate it. However, keep in mind I’m definitely not the most experienced judge in these types of matters. If there’s clear abuse, I’m down to listen. Frivolous theory will just make everybody sad.

Plans/CPs: Unless your plan is whole-rez, you’re probably going to be fighting an uphill battle trying to convince me. CPs probably need to be VERY mutually exclusive, and it’s the Neg’s job to establish this from the 1NC. This is a very fundamental issue on a CP debate, so if you fail to explain how your CP is competitive and the Aff calls you out for it in the 1AR, I consider your extra spicy cards explaining how it’s conpetitive in the 2NR to be new. It’s not fair for the Aff’s first chance at responding to these issues to be the 2AR.

Kritiks: Not necessarily opposed per say, I just happen to have zero experience with this type of argumentation. Proceed at your own risk and be sure to be extremely detailed in your explanations because I probably haven’t read the literature

Tricks: No. just No

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round! I’m excited to hear what you have to say :)

Experienced 3 year Judge.

My preferred speed is 3, not too slow and not too fast. I will not vote against you simply for going very fast but if i cannot understand what you are saying I will not be able to give your argument a fair evaluation.

Know if you are affirming or negating the resolved and then proceed to explain your value, your criterion and your contentions. Make sure you are informing the judge and your opponent of your framework. In cross make sure you address opposing's positions.

Final rebuttals should include a line by line with the voting issues and why your position is the better one.

Winner decided in strength and cited support for position.

Evidence 5.

I take notes during the round.

I will not vote on ks and don't appreciate them.

Its ok to be assertive without being rude or condescending.

I competed in Congress during High School. I want to see actual debate and persuasion, with real argumentation. Give clear arguments, don't just talk without saying anything substantive. Progress the debate.

Last Chance BQD:I took 5th at Nats in BQ so I have a pretty good understanding of the event. There are little to no limits on arguments you can run in BQ so I will be pretty tabula rasa when it comes to argumentation. I, personally, believe the event should be debated pretty lay/accessible but I will not hold that against you if you run technical arguments. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm for more information.

Basics: I competed in LD from 2016-2020 with experience locally and nationally. Now, I am the head coach of Dublin Jerome HS in Ohio where I coach all events. I have experience with all types of arguments and the remainder of this paradigm just goes over my preferences.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Dublin Jerome HS (OH), Alliance HS (OH).

LD:

Framework: You must run a V/VC. I use the framework to weigh the round but I do not vote on it alone. Do NOT make it a KVI because it carries no weight on its own.

Contention Level: I keep a rigorous flow. This means I will ask you to follow a line by line and will record all dropped arguments. This does not mean I will vote on who covers the most ground. You need to extend dropped arguments and weigh them against your opponents. If you kick a contention(s) that's fine, I don't care, just let me know in speech.

Evidence: You need to provide evidence in a timely fashion. I will use your prep time if you abuse this grace period. I will (likely) not review the evidence. It is not the judge's responsibility to do the evidence analysis. If there is a breach of rules then I will intervene. Otherwise, it is both debaters' duty to show why their analysis of the evidence is better.

PF:

*************Frontline. Frontline. Frontline.*****************

Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive or I will drone you out.

Line by line: I don't buy the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you.

Evidence: *SEE LD* If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep.

Please Please Please ask me questions if you have them. I take no offense at all if you question any one of these comments. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!!

Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Head Speech and Debate Coach, Dublin Jerome HS

Columbus District DEIB Chair

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 an experienced judge. I have participated in numerous tournaments over the past three years judging the following forms of debate LD, PF, and Congress.

I prefer a typical conversational speed rate of delivery; rate of delivery does heavily weigh on my decision making but I will not vote against a student solely based on the rate of delivery. Criterion rarely informs my decision; I do not consider it to be a required element but it may become a factor depending on how it’s used in a round.

Your final rebuttal should include voting issues or arguments and line by line analysis. I prefer students provide a coherent way for me to put it all together.

· Voting issues should be given as you move down your flow and at the end of the final speech.

· Voting issues should be arguments, not general ideas and are considered necessary.

· Jargon or technical language should be kept to a minimum.

· Evidence is necessary.

I keep detailed notes throughout the round, so please do not take offense if I fail to make consistent eye contact.

The way I decide who won a round is by the person who persuades me more on their position overall.

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

About me: I'm an undergraduate student at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH, studying philosophy. I also coached LD and PF for a while, and did both in high school

My Judging Procedure: First and foremost, I am not a progressive judge by any means. Ohio LD is very lay

The way that I evaluate an LD round is first based on who I feel won the framework debate. The winning framework will be my criteria for weighing the arguments of the round. I will then use the framework that I feel was better upheld, and will look at the relevant key voting issues made that fall under that framework. I will then look back over the relevant portions of the flow and make my decision based on who won the relevant and most impactful key voting issues that fall under the winning framework. So be strong in your framework attacks/defenses, as well as your key voting issues! (Please don't skimp out on either of these aspects of the round)

Example: Let's say the frameworks are utilitarianism vs. libertarianism, and I feel that Utilitarianism was better upheld. I will then look at the key voting issues made on both sides that are relevant to utilitarianism, and not libertarianism specifically, and then make my decision based on which debater won the most impactful key voting issues that tie in to utilitarianism. So don't think that you've lost the round just because you lost the framework debate. You still have a chance at beating your opponent under their framework.

-Under utilitarianism, I would look at key voters like "saving lives" or "preventing terrorism" and not libertarian specific key voting issues that may have been made, like "minimal state intervention," etc. In other words, under a utilitarian framework, I'll be evaluating the statistical and real world example side of the key voting issues and flow, not the more principled or deontological key voting issues that were made.

- But, it's very important that you explain to me why you've won under both frameworks throughout the round: especially in your key voting issues.

Further, I am more partial to logical philosophical arguments, rather than heavy use of statistics/consequences. However, if heavy use of statistics is your style, that's completely fine and I will still judge your round as fairly and objectively as possible using the criteria laid out above.

Last, I can flow quickly, but I prefer a normal, more conversational pace (so anywhere from a 1 to 5 out of 10, in terms of speed) (10 being spreading).

For PF: The stuff I previously mentioned about speaking speed still stands. Please don't approach anything like spreading because I'm honestly just going to miss a lot of arguments you make. I'm from a super lay area and was a pretty lay debater, myself. Additionally, in PF, I weigh evidence and statistics way more heavily than subjective teenager logic or "debater math," so don't be surprised if I card you on several things at the end of the round.

-Please weigh arguments/try to give key voting issues. This makes my decision a lot less arbitrary.

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Speaking more quickly will not help your case if you are not clear. Likewise speaking too loud will also not help your case.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

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.

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

I'm a parent judge. I believe in the traditional style of LD debate. I have some experience judging LD and PF. No spreading please, I must understand your arguments in order to give you the win. No theory, tech, tricks, or other types of debate as I will not understand it. I like weighing impacts and morality so that will give you extra points and make the debate more interesting. I like it when you tell me what I should vote for as it pushes your arguments further. I do not take my own bias into consideration (obviously,) so I will always vote for the debater that is able to back up their arguments. I like disads and CP's as long as they're topical. I come to the round as a blank slate so you need to make all your arguments in the case as I will not extend them for you. Public forum is a debate-style that even the most uninformed judges should be able to understand so no incomprehensible links or I will drop you.

Thank you, may the best debater win.

I am a parent who has judged five to six tournaments, PF and LD

I do not like spreading and prefer a moderate rate of speaking

Traditional arguments are preferred and will be judged for LD based on value criterion but final decision will be based on the entirety of the debate. Each opponents arguments should be countered as best as possible. Politeness is required.

I am a parent judge who has been judging in the local circuit since 2019. I have completed NFHS Adjudicating Speech and Debate training. While I primarily judge LD, I have experience judging Speech and PF as well.

My professional background is in Environmental Health and Safety and I hold a Master’s Degree in Public Health from New York Medical College.

No spreading please as I want to be able to understand your argument. Please don’t use fast talking to load in too many arguments, I am looking for clear, well-articulated and concise arguments. I am also not a fan of Progressive Theory arguments as I believe they are not in the spirit of the history or traditional style of the Lincoln-Douglas debate.

I like strongly warranted arguments. I enjoy when you tell me what to vote for as I believe it helps in a debater’s argument development. For me a good debater will use clear logic, well-paced speaking, have a consistent and thoughtful case and be respectful and courteous to their opponent. I do not tolerate rudeness to others.

Good luck and have fun!

Pronouns: She/her

Email: mariahjaynhays@gmail.com

Life is short, read whatever makes you happy at whatever speed you would like :) (barring anything grossly unethical)

Take a deep breath, you got this.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

Howdy to any competitor/coach reading this,

Main Paradigm

I was LD competitor for four years at Pembroke Pines charter high school in FL. I competed in both the local and national circuits during my time as a competitor. I have read and competed against most things that have found their way into the scene including but not limited to: Traditional, LARP, Ks, theory,T ,performative, etc. ( you can email me about anything not listed here, but I'm probably familiar, just forgot about while writing this paradigm)

I am slightly familiar with the topic, but as someone who doesn't coach or compete, I have yet to read any topic lit, so please don't assume I know anything that your average US high school grad wouldn't know. In regards to theory I am familiar with a lot of the common stuff but its been awhile so a refresher never hurts. Also of critical importance in regards to reading theory, I need you to explain what the theory is actually saying, please don't require me to make assumptions, cause you know what they say.

In regards to speaks I would say I am pretty generous, but things that will cause me to decrease speaks includes: unclear spreading if it continues after 2 "clears", poor speech organization, poor time management, being rude. Things that will not cause me to decrease speaks: speech impediments, sneezing/coughing/clearing your throat, background noise, or pretty much anything outside your control, spreading and while this may seem obvious, I have seen speaks docked for this so I figured I would mention it. I will only tank speaks if you are clearly intend to offended or demean either your competitor or any specific group of people, ie: racism, homophobia, sexism, xenophobia, purposeful triggering, failure to read trigger warnings in regards to content that may be triggering (when in doubt, ask before the round, and please accommodate. I don't have triggers so please clear this with your opponent before the round)

Misc info that may be useful

truth>tech

I default neg world to status quo if neg does not provide any alternative

Abuse has no bright line, but I am not afraid to gut check

Without any in round scaling, voters in order of importance default to: fairness, accessibility, education, anything else

I hate frivolous theory

I will vote on spikes, but you need to extend them ( don't be afraid to read T on spikes bad)

Ks are cool but as a white man I cannot in good faith vote on a oppression Olympics. I understand that you may closely relate to the Ks you read but in the event of a KvK debate it cannot simply boil down to my oppression is worse than theirs.

My pol compass placement is -4,-4 (lib, left)

Please just be nice to your opponent and people in general, it costs absolutely nothing and makes literally everything better

Please use a email chain rather than whatever internal system the tournament is running on, due to the fact that those are coded as well as the 3080 drop

If there is anything you want to know or want me to know about you feel free to email before or after the round, I tend to be accommodating

If you manage to throw a HxH reference anywhere in the round, it wont affect anything in round, but I'll think you're pretty cool and will send you a HxH meme via email if you so choose

TL;DR

Read anything, don't make me make assumptions, and be nice

Email is rhershey0411@gmail.com to email me for any questions

No spreading.

I am expericed judge,you don't need to dumb things down.

alexiajacksonn@icloud.com

I am a first-year student at Duke University. I did policy in high school and attended camp, so I am familiar with traditional and progressive arguments.

Keep track of time and prep on your own, please.

I generally am a flow judge and will vote through the lens of the framework. I appreciate impact calculus and weighing of arguments. Without this, many things will end up a wash on the flow or up to me.

K affs are fine

Condo args are fine ( I don't vote on them often, though I usually just end up giving leniency )

Speed is fine

For Policy:

I am fine with new in the two.

I will vote on T if it is a true abuse.

I am good with Ks

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

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

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

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

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

I did PF, LD, and Congress for 4 years at Liberty North High School in Liberty, Missouri. I graduated from Western Kentucky University in 2021 and competed in NFA-LD (one person policy), impromptu, and extemp. I was also a Debate Coach at Ridge High School during while at WKU.

Add me on the email chain - isaackeller7@gmail.com.

If you use speechdrop.net, send me the code.

Also, please disclose aff and neg on the WIKI.

I will vote on the flow every round. It's your job to execute the line by line just as it is my job to evaluate it fairly. The paradigm below should tell you just about everything you need to know, but feel free to ask me anything before the round.

Overview:

College LD has converted me into a tech over truth debater. I'll evaluate just about any argument that isn't blatantly offensive (sexist, racist, etc.). That includes impact turns. However, if it is a little harder to believe, or a little more out there, then there's a higher threshold on supporting warrants and evidence. I give a lot of weight to conceded arguments, even if they suck. If it's a back and forth wash, I'll prioritize the debater with deeper analysis and higher quality arguments - just win truth and tech to be safe.

Good debate requires extensive research, preparation, organization, and good communication skills. I appreciate successful in-round execution and strategy. I will reward newer and better quality evidence, organized citations, and clear speakers with high speaks and a tie-breaker. Evidence should always include the date published, author, author quals, and source - you should treat evidence in debate like you would a research paper. However, all you need to do is say the author last name and year in round.

Extend warrants and give a detailed explanation/analysis of the argument. Extending through ink is pretty much only good if the argument extended is conceded; however, I'll give more credence/vote on it if you spend some time on it.

I'm very unlikely to vote on defense. You need offense in the round to be a winner.

Speed: You can go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I'll clear you as many times as needed until I can understand you. If I need to do it more than 3 times in a speech, I'lll be annoyed, and your speaks may be in danger. I'll reward proper enunciation, slowing on tags, and slowing on author/publication.

If you aren't spreading, I'll likely flow on my computer. If you are, I'll flow on paper. Never worry about me not looking up, it's just because I'm focused on the flow. I'll pay attention to CX, but you need to keep all arguments that you want me to flow and evaluate within speeches as well. Perceptional dominance in CX will only get you so far. However, I am paying attention and won't tolerate flip flopping as CX is binding.

RFD: Debate is an educational activity. I will give an RFD after the round and welcome any questions you may have to try and clear up confusion or defend my decision.

To be straight with you, you're in charge of whether you receive my ballot or not. I really don't want to intervene, that's more work for me, I prefer to judge a debate where I can be as hands off as possible. Weigh arguments and use ballot directing language - you can do this with an overview in the last speech that tells me how you win or with voters, I really don't care. Don't leave me with a ton of different unresolved impacts on each side where I have to decide whether I want extinction from nuclear war or extinction from pandemics. I'll always default to the team that maps a clear route to the ballot over the team with a shotgun strat.

Please debate the topic. It's both a question of fairness and a question of education. I have voted for performative arguments that ignore the topic before but will give a lot of leeway to framework. Critical arguments are fine as long as they clearly have something to do with the resolution and are explained well.

Speaks are determined by efficiency, smart choices, and persuasive/clean delivery.

Policy:

Read the overview above for general questions about my paradigm.

Knowledge: I never did policy in HS and rarely judge/coach it now. My flaw as a judge is my lack of knowledge on particular strategies and details within the event (what speech to stop reading cards, what a nicely executed block looks like, dividing the flow in speeches, etc.). I've got a decent understanding of the event from following the NDT/CEDA in college. In terms of argumentation, college LD isn't much different.

Pref: I prefer judging traditional policy debate. Specifically, CP/DA/Case debate. Big fan of policy affs and neg positions with big impacts. It's not that I'll drop you if you run critical arguments or theory, I just rarely go for those positions in college and thus have a worse understanding of how to evaluate those positions compared to traditional policy. I also just enjoy judging/watching policy oriented debates more.

Kritk Aff: Please in some way adhere to the resolution. There are some persuasive fairness and education arguments I can vote on if you don't.

Case: I love well researched, in-depth rounds, and that requires deep case debate. Specifically, less debaters are focusing on method/solvency spec take outs, which is a bummer because that's where a lot of education/research comes to play. Offense on case is strategic, especially with strats lacking a CP.

Kritik: If you choose to go the K route, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability. I'm comfortable/familiar with Set Col and Cap, anything else will require you to explain it super well to get my ballot. This means devoting enough time to overviews and framing claims than you would otherwise. There are a lot of reasons that I think K debaters have the burden of explaining the K well - just know that I expect to be able to understand the position by the end of the debate. I can't vote for something if I don't know what it does/what I am endorsing.

DA: I understand, as any policy judge should. Love myself a Tix DA (agenda and elections) - pretty much all I go for in college. I appreciate topic DAs, econ DAs, and fism. Please collapse, whether that be Case/DA or Case/DA/CP. The DA should blow up in the 2N - I want a thorough line by line with an overview, extensions, and impact calc. If aff only puts defense on the DA, and it serves as a net-benefit to a CP or there's risk of offense on case, probably not good for the aff.

CP: It only needs to sufficiently solve the affs offense with a net-benefit to get my vote. I'm a big fan of states and clever, well researched, adv counterplans. The counterplan should have a similar evidence burden as the aff; it needs to at least say the method proposed through the counterplan solves. Aff should always perm, but I do debate, so I understand that the CP is competitive if it has a net-benefit (states with agenda tix, conceded perm on states means nothing without terminal D or offense on agenda). Make sure you explain the perm well if you go for it. As for consult CPs and other non-competitive CPs, - they are trash and I am easily persuaded by the perm.

AR Theory: I prefer to avoid AR theory, but tbh, I become sympathetic to the aff if neg reads more than 2 CPs. However, this changes if the aff has an illogical amount of advantages. I'll vote on condo/pics bad if it's all aff goes for in the 2A, but it's definitely an uphill battle for you if it isn't conceded and neg reads less than 3 CPs.

Imp turns: Talked about this in the overview above. I'll vote on it. Pref not seeing back files though.

T: I default to competing interps but will let you debate out standards and education/fairness. Go all in, otherwise I probably won't vote on it unless aff really messed up. Procedurals are strategic - you'll never be punished for reading one without going for it. Won't listen to RVIs.

Theory: Positions like vagueness, minor repair, etc. are not reasons for me to drop the debater. I don't want to see weird blipy theoretical arguments and am 99% sure I won't vote on them.

Congress:

Although not directly applicable, you can read the overview above for general questions about my paradigm. To a degree, I will evaluate your speech with some of the perceptions/preferences I have listed in the overview.

Knowledge: I did congress all 4 years of HS and have coached/judged it for the last 3 years. Just like any other form of debate, I think congress judges should reward students that have clearly worked hard and have thoroughly researched the legislation. That being said, beyond outstanding communication skills and argumentation, I look for unique, well researched points when evaluating the content within a congress speech. Congress can become repetitive very quickly, so it's important to avoid stock debate if you're not giving the authorship or the first couple of aff/neg speeches.

PO: Go for it if you think you can do it well. I'll reward the PO if they do a good job and keep the room running effectively. I can assure you I will not forget to rank the PO.

Delivery: Congress is more performative than the other debate events. It should include the following:

A clean/funny/entertaining/relevant attention getting device

A speech outline/road map (pass/fail this for reason 1, 2 and 3)

References to sections or purposes of the bill

Data/evidence to support your arguments/claims

Transitions in-between points

A conclusion that is linked to your introduction

Time: Congress functions a lot like extemp in the field of time. You should not go over or under and should aim to end your speech at 2:55-3:05.

Evidence/Data: I pay a lot of attention to evidence/data when deciding how to rank speakers. You should list the author/organization, qualifications, and publication date when referring/paraphrasing evidence. I will reward the use of academic papers, more recent publications, and high quality evidence (where it can be directly quoted not paraphrased). Empirical/quantitate evidence with stats, polling, etc. has a stronger backing than qualitative evidence. Just like any other debate, I would like to hear good explanations from both the evidence and the debater. Don't get caught up in 3 mins of reading someone else's work.

Debate/Questioning: Okay, this is how you achieve my 1st ranking. Ask incredible, gotchya questions in questioning or strategic preemptive questions for your speech. This is some of the only debate in the event, so you really need to exploit it to impress judges who usually judge PF/LD/CX. While I will obviously evaluate your speech, I will also evaluate the questions you ask and the answers you give when deciding your score. Furthermore, if you're not giving the first speech, you need to make refs to previous speakers to get my 1. This is congressional debate, you are not suppose to read off a pre-written flow pad - there needs to be analysis generated in the round that you present as well.

Authorship: If you give the authorship, you are giving up the ability to refute in speech. It is your job to prempt arguments from the negative and address those arguments within your speech. You should also describe the problem the bill addresses and why your bill is uniquely important.

Please don't role play. It won't effect my voting, but it quickly turns congressional debate into mock government, and I think the time in your speech can be better spent.

Pre-Round Overview for competitors - Updated September 2022

Overview: I have not judged much in the past few years so you may need to take extra care with clarity and speed. I recently got settled into a new home and married ect so i have some time to judge debates. I see debate as a competitive educational activity. I am probably the best judge for more policy centric debates, but I have familiarity with some critical literature and critical debates. From a theoretical standpoint preserving competitive equity is more important than education to me, but without either of these aspects debate would cease to be what it is.

Preference for Specificity: I prefer specificity to generic argumentation in all things: theory, affirmative case structure, DA/CPs/Ks/Diversity. I prefer a few good well warranted cards over a few short cards that lack warrants.

Communication/Flowing: Debate is first and foremost an activity based on communicating ideas. Line-by-Line debating and signposting are crucial if you want to make sure my flow looks like yours. I read evidence, but primarily decide based off of my flow. 

Be respectful of your opponents and teammates.

Note: Remember this is simply a list of my predispositions with the exception that No Value to Life arguments will not get you anywhere. We all bring parts of ourselves into debates and this is one pre-disposition that I have more strongly than others. 

Longer Version - Read if you want to know my predispositions on a specific topic or my background.

Background: I debated in HS and college. I have not judged much over the past few years, but wanted to try and give back a bit now that my life has settled down.

Topicality: Specificity is key. On both sides provide a clear interpretation of what cases and other arguments are allowed and not allowed and then impact why this is better for debate than the other team’s interpretation. Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

Affirmative case structure: I prefer well developed advantages to three card wonders.

Counterplans: Conditionality is generally good. Some types of conditionality and advocacies when combined can easily be seen as not good. Multiple conditional advocacies can be problematic. Specific solvency literature can help a lot to justify otherwise problematic arguments. Object fiat is never cool.

Kritiks: I am well versed in some critical literature (mainly related to the ways power relations impact interpersonal and group dynamics or in relation to mental health), but do not assume that I know your argument. These arguments are often debated in a way that can miss the largest points authors make, but I try to leave my bias at the door. I view myself as a policymaker unless explicitly asked to view myself in another role (informed citizen ect.). Framing is crucial when teams are debating in different styles to encourage clash and make the round clearer to judge. I prefer to intervene the least amount possible in deciding rounds.

C-X: I flow cross-examination and feel that it is the most underutilized portion of the debate. Good debaters use it to set up arguments.

last chance - i will have much less tolerance for circuit debaters trolling traditional debaters at this tournament, sorry. i don't mind what you read as long as you're not going too fast or being intentionally obtuse when you're asked to explain it

i have recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - please just call me Eva in round instead of judge. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I primarily coach traditional debate, but when I bring kids onto the circuit they typically go for theory and K heavy strats

• Affiliations: Hawken, VBI

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i have come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style. however, in very close clash rounds, i may lean towards arguments i find to be simpler/easier to vote for or that i understand better. to be open about my biases, i will say that i find myself voting for theory, phil, and tricks more than ks and all the above more than policy

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - email or messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)

I am a traditional judge. I value topicality, and I like signposting by both sides so that I can flow the round. I do not flow cross ex, so if you have points to make based on cross-ex, you will need to include them in your rebuttal. I will not read a case that is submitted to me, as I believe that you should do the work of debating your case vocally. If your spreading prohibits my ability to flow your case, you are not likely to win your round. I am seldom swayed by complaints of "unfair"--it just sounds whiney.

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.

Hi - I went to high school in China and debated LD, PF, and BP in nat circuits. I'm now at NYU.

Feel free to email me before-round about any questions or clarification, email is at the bottom of this :)

Paradigm:

TL;DR Version:

I learn more towards traditional than I do progressive/circuit, but I don't prefer one type of debate over the other. I'm completely ok with fast speaking, but prefer that you don't spread - if you have to in order to fit your case in, that's fine, but please send me your cards before the debate starts. I'm not the best at judging Ts or spikes. I will judge anything you throw at me - I don't inherently like or dislike anything in the realm of debate, so run whatever argument you feel comfortable with. That being said, please make it as easy as possible for me to understand.

ONLINE DEBATE: If you have a pet, show me and I'll bump your speaks by 0.2 for each animal :)

LONG VERSION:

Theory Debates:

As long as it isn't a "my version of this is better than your version" of this without engagement on your opponent's points, I'm open to it and enjoy a good theory clash. Please carry your arguments throughout the entire debate (recap at the 2AR/ 1NR). That said, a well-fleshed out traditional debate is just as good, and can also win the ballot. I don't have a preference.

Nuance:

Technical or political language that isn't considered "common knowledge" should be quickly explained. I cannot judge a concept or evidence that I don't understand. Any important terms/theories/background info should be explained in a formal "speech" - it should not only be explained on the off-chance it's brought up in CX.

Frameworks:

I view the framework as the structure that an entire team's arguments should be based around. I view being able to support your own framework to be just as important as knocking down your opponent's. Tearing holes in the other team's frameworks while being unable to defend your own will not earn you full points from me.

CX:

I don't flow CX. If there's something you want to emphasize, bring it up in the 1NC or 1AR.

VI/RoB:

*Please* do this. It makes the debate much easier for me to judge, allows the debaters to frame things in a way that ultimately helps them, and just makes life much much easier.... please do it T.T

Evidence Ethics:

Demonstrated transgression of evidence ethics warrants an automatic loss.

Email is kathy.liu@nyu.edu. I'm in China so Gmail lags a bit sometimes - for as long as we are online, the NSDA Dropbox thing might be the fastest way.

Jeevan Machimada - Judging Paradigm for LD debate

I have been judging various forms of speech and debate for high school students for the past 3 years

In addition to the required traits of a judge – to be unbiased, fair, and not be influenced by my opinion on the subject being debated, I have the following judging philosophy and paradigms:

· I want the debater to be confident an articulate

· I value education, argumentation and persuasion

· Argument points must be relevant and not very repetitive

· I value supporting evidence

· I prefer polite communication, but would encourage a semi-aggressive rebuttal

Regards

Jeevan

This is my 3rd time experience as a Judge. So i still feel i am novice at Judging.

I prefer participant to articulate their content in a clear and in the right pace(neither fast nor Slow).

Personally i do not prefer very fast speaking speech as its difficult for me to comprehend the content.

Deena R. McNamara, Esq.

Updated for Harvard 2024

Please include me on the email chain at deena.mcnamara@ahschool.com or create a SpeechDrop before the commencement of the round. If the round starts at x time, then please ensure that the doc is sent or uploaded by x time.

My Background:

I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate.

I have been a litigation attorney in excess of 26 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 20 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I have been coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach since 2021. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.

I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Princeton, Glenbrooks, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and many others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. CX is super-important in the round, so please make sure that you are not sitting in a desk facing away from me during CX. Judges who think that CX does not matter really do not understand the purpose of debate; I will leave it at that. Additionally, I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible.

I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.

Important:

Please do not text or message with anyone outside of the round during the round for any reason whatsoever. To be clear, you should not receive any texts, messages, emails, documents or any other form of communication whatsoever from anyone outside of the round during the round.

Case type/argument preferences:

Phil- 1

K -1

Perm with Doublebind arguments- 1

Turns on case and/or FW-1

Line-by-Line -1

Non-T Affs-2

T- 2

Disads- 2

Theory to check abuse- 3

CP- 3

Kicking arguments- 4

Contradictory case positions-5

Collpasing on an argument in last rebuttal when there is offense on other arguments in round- 5

Theory read as time suck- 5

Policy Affs/Plans/LARP- 5

FW/Phil Debate:

I love phil cases, dense phil cases, detailed frameworks with lots of philosphical warrants and well-written analytics that are interspersed in your framework. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.

Ks:

I love Ks when they are well-written. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed, Wilderson, Warren, and some other authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.

Plans/CPs/DAs/Perms:

I am not a fan of LARP debate. If you want to read a bunch of evidence with heavy stats and nuke war impacts, then maybe you should consider policy debate. Debaters have been reading brink arguments since the beginning of time and we are still here. If you read a Plan or Counterplan in the round, please ensure that it is suffciently developed and there is offense. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent. If you read a Perm then please slow down and explain it because debates get messy when these arguments are not fleshed out. When you are making arguments against a Perm, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly as to why they cannot Perm or why you outweigh on net benefits. I am not going to go back to your speech doc to figure out what you said and make the connections for you. I do love double-bind arguments and I think they are very strategic in policy debate. If you make a double-bind argument, then please slow down so I can truly enjoy the argument as you make it; I aprpeciate it.

Non-T affs, T, theory and misc.:

I am fine with non-T affs, but I think you can figure out some way to make the Aff topical so the Neg can engage in the substance of the debate. I am amenable to reasonable topicality arguments - not BS ones for time suck.I know that everyone wants to uplayer the Neg and read so many positions that the other side cannot answer; however, one of the key purposes of debate is to engage critically with the arguments made by the other debater. When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff. Please do not just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect varisty debaters at national competitions to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to send cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.

LD as a sport:

LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.

However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.

Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.

Voters and what I like to vote on:

Please give me voters. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me before the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.

Pet Peeves:

Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your CX as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate! You do not have to send extempted analytics in the round.

I am a parent judge who has been judging on the local North Carolina circuit for a year and a half. I cannot tolerate spreading at all--if you want to know if your speed is understandable to me, please ask before the round. I have absolutely no understanding of formal theory shells, but if you make a clear, jargon-less, explanation about why a certain argument is abusive, I will take it into account; however, it will NOT factor greatly into my decision. Do not use technical terms or esoteric philosophies because I will not understand them and will likely be distracted from your actual case.

The key points that I expect from a good debater are: 1) clear logic and well-explained analysis 2) smooth, organized speaking 3) courteous behavior -- debate should be fun and educational

Happy Debating!

I have a fairly straightforward perspective on my judging preferences. I am very much a traditional flow judge. I do not prefer progressive styles. I don't prefer spreading, and if a debater speaks so quickly that I have trouble understanding them, I will not be able to prefer their arguments.

Backing up your arguments with convincing evidence and telling me specifically why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's will help you win the round. Extending your arguments throughout the flow and pointing out to me any concessions your opponent made in cross-ex or any arguments dropped by your opponent will greatly strengthen your case. Voter issues are helpful. Explain to me the reasons for why you believe you won the round. Clarity of thought and logic for me will trump fast speech every time.

Experience

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

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

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

Important Notes

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

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

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

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

Theory/T

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

Kritiks

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

Tricks

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

Philosophy

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

Past Experience: I debated in North Carolina from 2012-2016. I’m currently a PhD student in robotics and AI ethics at UT Austin and previously attended MIT, and did a concentration in Latin American politics and political philosophy. I was the district champion in the Tarheel East District and went to nationals my senior year, qualified for CFLs my junior and senior year, and placed 3rd at States my senior year. I made it to out rounds at Wake Forest. I've been judging/coaching off and on since 2016. I debated in both traditional and progressive styles, and have no implicit preference between the two. Both paradigms are below:

Traditional Paradigm: I’ll evaluate any argument you make in the context you make it. That being said, don’t take advantage of my paradigm to be abusive. If you use speed to overwhelm your opponent or employ other tricky or gimmicky strategies, I will probably be annoyed (as will your opponent) – I like to see actual clash of arguments, not a race to give the most arguments. The faster you talk, the higher burden you have to make thoughtful, powerful arguments, not just a multitude of weak ones. I can understand spread fine, but given the virtual format, spreading is probably a suboptimal strategy.

I give higher weight to framework consistency over contention level/statistical disputes – if you are clearly winning the framework debate, link your framework to the resolution, and can impact off it effectively, you’ll almost certainly get the win. I don’t expect either debater to be an expert on the literature, so focus more on winning the core of the value criterion debate than specific pieces of evidence. I won’t drop you for dropping a card if you use that time to extend meaningful impacts directly linked to the resolution. Tell me what I should care about and why.

For speaker points: everyone starts out with a 28 in my book. If you do good things (clear argument structure, signposting, well organized rebuttals [I LOVE when debaters number/label their arguments for me, it makes the flow much neater], etc.) I’ll reward you. If you do bad things (e.g. poor organization in your rebuttal) I’ll dock points. I’ll clearly explain my reasoning on the ballot and am happy to give additional feedback if requested. Given the virtual format, I’ll pay more attention to argument structure than how you actually sound and in general am lenient with speaker points.

Acknowledgement: Historically, women and minorities have been docked points in debate* for coming off "too aggressive," etc. I won't do that. Be as aggressive as you want.

* http://vbriefly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tartakovsky_Tabroom_Analysis.pdf

Quote Kanye, get a 30**. That's the rule.

**unless you're losing and the tournament doesn't allow low point wins. Regardless, I'll give you the max speaks I can.

Note: you can convincingly win cross-examination without being condescending. Make strong arguments and ask difficult questions/put your opponent on the spot, but there's a difference between aggression and condescension.

I’m excited to hear your cases, just be respectful to your opponent and let’s have some fun!

for file exchange/comments/questions/concerns/additional feedback: kyle.morgenstein@gmail.com

Progressive Stuff, if that's your thing:

TLDR: do whatever you want, but I'm a hard ass about links. Otherwise, you can probably convince me to vote on almost anything. Tech > truth, usually. Ask me to clarify if this matters to you.

In general: Reading a card is not a warrant. Reading a card AND PROVIDING ANALYSIS is a warrant. Explain to me the mechanism for how you justify your claims. Why should I prefer your study over theirs? Why should I prefer this analytic over emperics? I care more about your link tree than about whether or not you get to existential impacts.

Kritiks: I love 'em, K affs are fine, and I can generally follow the literature, just make sure you slow down for the links. I have a very high standard for links (in general, but especially with Ks) so make sure those are clear. Explicitly tell me what the roll of the ballot is. Why does voting for the K matter, and why is that more important than arguing the resolution at face value? My only pet peeve with K debaters is if your opponent clearly can't/doesn't understand the argument. If that happens just slow down a little, make it clear; you'll do better in front of me if your opponent understands why they're losing to the K than if you just spread DnG while your opponent fights back tears. Otherwise, I'll evaluate any argument you make in front of me if you can justify it/it isn't literally racist/sexist/etc.

Theory: Please don't make me evaluate theory that isn't in standard shell form. Give me the violation, link, impact, role of the ballot, etc., and I'm happy enough. I'm kind of bored of the same education and fairness arguments. If an actual violation happened and you're using theory defensively, fine, but if you're going for theory as a strategy at least make it interesting.

Topicality: yeah fine, do what you want.

LARP/Policy Stuff (Plans, CPs, Disads, Multiple Advocacies, etc.): Same as before, I'm happy to evaluate it, just make the links clear and if your opponent is struggling to keep up, slow down on the tags/flash case.

Tricks: I'd rather you didn't. But if you do, justify it. I'll let you run your spike if it's clear why you deserve it. I'm not going to give you the win because you fit in the 8 words it takes to say "aff gets RVIs cuz time skew is unfair" but debate is a game and I'll evaluate any strategy you want to try to use to win it.

Performance Stuff: Honestly I think these type of debates are super interesting and I'm happy to vote for it if your link is good (I'm a broken record about links, I know). If you have a trad opponent I expect you to take the time to explain it to them: if you're going to argue that debate space is best filled by this performance and lead to XYZ real world impacts, then making sure we're all along for the ride is key. This is maybe the only type of argument for which I expect you to persuade me is authentic.

Role of the Ballot: lol you tell me. To me it's just pressing a button but if it means something more significant than that, tell me about it.

First off, I only have a couple of years judging debate tournaments. I ask the following from the debaters during the round in order to best conclude who the winner of the round may be.

1. I would encourage the debaters to speak at a moderate pace and make sure to emphasize your key points during the round for me to better understand your case.
2. Emphasize the impact of your evidence more than the evidence itself. I will give great value to the evidence provided in your case but I will remember the impact that your evidence has to the rest of your case more.
3. Make sure that your case is consistent and well rounded. One of the key points I take down is how strong your case is and how well your crystallization. I will rely on your main points of your case through your crystallization, so make sure to be able to explain all of your evidence and contentions well.
4. Steps to win my ballot: Please communicate clearly and stay organized. Defend your points well not only with restating your previous arguments but to link to main idea and impacts. Make sure to weigh your impact with the opponents impact. Be constructive and respective of your opponent since I value debate to be constructive and engaging.

PARADIGM: Lincoln/Douglas

"Traditional" parent judge.

GOOD: You pick a few compelling points; thread them together rhetorically; respond in the moment to challenges; and thereby formulate an argument. Your even pacing and signposting demonstrate organization, clarity, and the understanding that your case and rebuttals must be compelling to the judge; not merely to you or your competitor.

BAD: Disregard for history. Remember, LD is named after two giants of American rhetorical practice, who squared off in a series of values-based debates on the most divisive issue of their time. Those debates occurred in the public square, with the intent of compelling voters to adopt a cause. Lincoln did not use K's. Douglas did not use Progressive Theory Arguments. And neither of them spreaded. (Speed-talkers in this event cannot or will not prioritize. Yes, you're operating within a time constraint. Use that not as an excuse to cram in more stuff and talk faster. Rather, use it to winnow out all but the most persuasive points.)

Good luck!

This is my third year judging - I judge Congressional Debate and Lincoln-Douglas, and occasionally have the pleasure of being entertained with speech performances. I have been a practicing attorney for 26 years, both in the trial, transactional, and appellate worlds. While in public practice I spent significant time drafting model legislation for use by the multiple states and testifying on its behalf in the Maine Legislature. I love policy. I love the art of persuasion. I value the ability to argue both sides of any issue. I enjoy pointed and concise argument. Be professional, be kind, and, most importantly, have fun.

Disclaimer: Haven't thought about debate since FRESHMAN YEAR (2020), haven't thought about circuit debate since SENIOR YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL. I do not know the topic. I would not advise going full speed, but you are free to ignore that advice at your peril (I often did!)

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or rude. I will not like you, and if given a reason, will drop you.

I did LD in high school both lay and on the circuit. If you have any questions about the rest of my paradigm just ask me: guacomole13@gmail.com.

Harvard update: Please have clash. Please.

Overall stuff:

- Tech > Truth

- Add me to the email chain. I'll be a bit more lax with the doc-sending times given the online stuff but don't take too long.

- An argument needs claim and a warrant at least please, and I'm being generous with that. Please stop making claims without a warrant.

- Ill vote on pretty much anything that's warranted and impacted both generally and to my ballot. I don't give credence to one lit base over another. Reading something just because you think i'd like it is probably not the way to go but do you I guess.

- Debate can be whatever you want it to be, whether that's a game, a liberation strategy, or an activity you do just cause.

- Decision Calculus = "who's winning framing" "who's winning offense under that framing". I’ll evaluate “layers” and all that jazz but thats work you have to do. If your strategy requires a different evaluative mechanism just make that clear

- Absent framing I'll presume util=trutil

- Don't assume I've read your lit

Rankings (less an 1:1 recommendation of how to pref me and more an order of what I am most familiar with 1 being the highest)

K: 1

"LARP": 1

T: 2

Theory: 2-3

Framework/Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

please don't assume i remember random LD terms; fully explain your args, and have fun!

Hello,

I am a beginner parent judge, but benefit from decades of professional legal argumentation. You can speak at whatever speed you like, provided that it is smooth and comprehensible. If you speak too fast and I do not understand an argument, I will not vote on it.

I value arguments that are: (1) clear, coherent and crisp and (2) well-weighted. I have little tolerance for discourtesy, no matter how compelling your argument.

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.

Hi! I am a lay judge with very little experience in LD debate. I primarily judge the I.Es and other speaking events, but have judged Lincoln Douglas debate once or twice on the local circuit. I do not want to hear any spreading because debate is an art of communication. I will take notes throughout the round. I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. Be clear with your framework, contentions, and tags. Most importantly, have fun!

Out for round 1 :).

Srilatha Rachapudi

Chantilly

Please include me in your email chain. My email is sri.rachapudi@gmail.com.

First, I am a parent judge, so I prefer the TRADITIONAL form of LD. Comprehensibility is extremely important in determining speaker points and evaluating arguments. I will dramatically improve your speaker points if you speak passionately and are clear enough that I can hear every word you say (including cards). If I can’t understand you or the evidence you are reading, I will drastically dock your speaker points and will be extremely unlikely to call for or evaluate evidence. The primary criterion for deciding speaker points will be clarity, enunciation, passion, volume, ethos, etc. So please be sure to not speak too fast. No spreading please.

Next, effective communication. Clarity is much more important than speed, but it is also just the beginning of effective communication. Effectively communicating means speaking passionately and persuasively; speaking to the judge and not at your laptop or flow. It means emphasizing the warrants in your evidence while you are reading it. Most debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. Effective communication is not just about speaker points. Most debaters over-estimate the number of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. Also, please be sure to clearly signpost so I can flow properly.

Again, please remember to keep this debate traditional.

Thank you and I look forward to judging you,

Srilatha Rachapudi

I don't find very quick information dumps, long cards, and short-hand, card-focused techniques persuasive. I would like to hear a brief explanation of the evidence used and why you used them and how they are helpful in proving your point. Cards are good, but they are not a substitute for explaining your own reasoning and analysis.Overall participation is key, and I will be paying attention to the most detailed questions in cross-examination.

would like to hear you explain the central, salient tensions in your round and why you won them.

I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.

Email chain: rhetorrao@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

I am most comfortable with a traditional policy-like strategy. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.

I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. Definitely not the judge for a tricks debate.

Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear.

Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun.

You found me!

I am a traditional-style parent judge with three years of experience judging Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, SPAR and Congressional Debate.

If you want to dazzle me don’t speak too quickly and throw in a little humor…after all this should be fun!

I thoroughly enjoy judging a debate that is engaging, organized, and concise with meaningful dialogue

and clearly articulated arguments. Demonstrate respectfully why your position is better. I want to see

and hear clear and reasonable arguments at a speed that is easy to follow. I appreciate professional

decorum with logical framework supported by sound arguments that back up your resolution.

DO NOT BE RUDE. If your opponent is clearly less experienced do not annihilate them unnecessarily.

A novice debater shouldn’t leave the debate wondering why they got involved.

Tell me why your case should win but don’t tell me your case has won…that is why I am here. Persuade

me but don’t decide for me.

Speaking points will be awarded based on presentation, clarity, persuasiveness, and your ability to

present the soundness of your case in a professional and courteous manner. Know your case well

enough that you can add some personality and be comfortable speaking about it.

I am a parent judge who has been judging LD in eastern North Carolina for the past two years. I appreciate the challenges and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such insist that a cordial and respectful environment be maintained at all times. This will ensure space for the highest level of thought and expression.

The most important points that I respond to in a successful debate are:

1) Clear logic and articulated support. Preferably argued under an overarching structure where evidence can be understood through tangential relationships, and not a series of unrelated statements.

2) Composed and effective communication, including body language as well as verbal skills.

3) Intellectual agility- the ability to quickly craft and articulate thoughtful positions in a short time frame.

If these points are present I am confident that you will be a very strong debater, and gain as much as possible from these exceptional educational opportunities.

There are however a few things that hinder my ability to evaluate information and arguments as fairly as possible. Primarily speed is a detriment to my ability to synthesize the arguments being offered. Please no spreading. Also, as a lay judge I prefer traditional debate styles. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

CX @ Newton High School 2012 - 2016

NFA LD @ WKU 2016 - 2020

Coach @ Ridge 2018 - 2021

Email: alex.mckenzie.rivera@gmail.com

To me, debate at its core is a game of strategy and persuasion. I have some personal predispositions that are difficult to sway me from (offense/defense paradigm, death is bad) and a few hard commitments (speech times will be followed, no audience participation, arguments are true if they are dropped, etc.). Most of my other preferences only matter when core pieces of the round have been unresolved by the debaters themselves.

In my 10/10 round:

• The AFF would read a plan text making some demand for action from the US federal government
• The NEG would primarily read PoliSci/Economic focused Ks with contextual links to the case that demonstrate a mastery of the resolution and mechanisms of the topic
• Topicality would contain lots of topic evidence and not be used as a strategic out from substance when the NEG loses in the rebuttal
• Plan texts would be much more specific than minimal policy shorthand
• Overviews would not contain a ton of implicit clash I am supposed to unbox
• Most cards would be from peer reviewed journals/sites (not relevant if it's news events like politics)
• Evidence would not be built on moralism or personal anecdotes
• "Framework Affirmatives" would have more substantive responses to DAs than cards about causality or structural violence

You can certainly pref me much higher than "no plan no win" judges, but probably slightly below judges who have no true preference.

There are few examples of terminal defense, such as a card that says the agenda politics bill already passed. There are a lot more examples of mitigating the relative probability of something so low that I don't care much about it.

I am sympathetic to specification arguments that are rooted in evidence which addresses the consequences of how the plan is written. I am not very sympathetic to specification theory arguments.

Speaks are awarded based on good strategy, clever argumentation, persuasiveness, time allocation, quality research, slick CXs, and not saying things that are egregiously offensive. Speaker point begging is likely to get you a 25.

NFA-LD 2024

I am new to judging/coaching the topic, but I do have a reasonable base knowledge of nuclear policy from my Political Science MA program a few years back and past debate topics. Just keep in mind to minimize acronyms and short handing where possible.

Trey Roark

She/Her/They/Them

If you have any questions about the round or anything in general, don't hesitate to email me at trey.roark3@gmail.com (Also add me to the email chain)

Just have fun with the debate I promise I'm not mean it's just my face

TL;DR:

Go off on whatever you want

Truth Over Tech (Tech is obviously amazing, but don’t go reading racism/homophobia good args or something like that because that ain't the truth, and arguments that are just not true are not persuasive)

Love speed especially when clear

Also, cross-ex is something I pay attention to a lot.

Top Level:

I think that debate is based on the contextualization of the round. Whatever comes out of your mouth is what I evaluate (which on paper sounds really weird but you get the point).

Don't be rude, but that doesn't mean you can't be bold, if fact I encourage it, if you know a claim is ridiculous call it out, clown on them, and CX is a perfect place to do this.

IMO CX is CX because of CX so I evaluate Cross-Ex ALWAYS. It's my favorite part, so y'all better know whatchu talking about because CX can be pretty damning for a lot of teams

Arguments:

KvK: I'm all for them, especially if it's done well. I love talking about specific theories and reading various literature on them. I do a lot of QT and Sex Worker research so if you're planning on running with that I'd have a pretty good background on it before reading it in front of me. Anything else is totally fine, but I evaluate this in terms of a method v. method, not in terms of which method I think is better but which is better framed, linked, and described materially throughout the round. So tech helps you a lot here.

Plans: Sure! I read soft left affs in high school, so I have a soft spot for em........ If you're not reading one, topic analysis is obviously almost necessary, but even then if it says "screw the res" that's cool too, C/I can help you with this as well. I read k affs, but I love clash debates.

Framework: I read both K affs and Policy affs, so I've voted on FW before. I will say there better be a lot of impact framing on this, especially in the context of the round, cause I believe that the aff in itself is scholarship so that's already a plus for in-round analysis.

TvPlans: You can go for T in the 2NR, but there needs to be quite a bit of articulation, mostly just because I don't really understand it and I didn't do much of it in high school. I've never gone for T before, so if that gives you any information. Affs that are obviously untopical sway my vote in this case. Grammar T's are pretty strong tho to ;)

DAs: I like these, but at some point, I think they not only get repetitive but also boring. In this case, quality over quantity, because if not, it's a waste, so if you're running it into the block, there needs to be a lot of contexts and in-round descriptions.

CPs: I like these, condo is definitely good in this case. I think theory on CPs can be strategic, I also like the creativity of CPs, but I think Fiat in all cases needs to be explained to me in the context of what we fiating and why we should be able to. I don't just buy a "we get fiat" argument, I need to know why you do.

Theory: Perm debate is good, but it isn't just about specific theories and why you deserve perms or not, it's also what can the perm do for each side, or why it's unfair for the affirmative to have one, I love out of the box answers to perms and play on words. Other theories are fine but there needs to be more than a 1 line description and a fairness impact though.

KvPlan (K's in general): I like these kinds of debates, especially if there's a good link not just to the topic/overarching usfg, but specifically the plan itself and why voting aff causes specific disadvantages. Tell me why the perm can't work, and why the K and K alone is specific to solving the plan. I also live for how plan debaters respond to this, if done well can make for really good debates.

Also, I love putting DA names on links and examples, creative naming goes a long way for me.

Things I hate

- Blippy Disclosure (Unless breaking new or specific reason)

- Stealing Prep

- Clipping

- Homophobia/Racism/Sexism/Transphobia, etc.

Debate is supposed to be fun and an awesome activity where we all get to hear each other's opinions, voices, and scholarship; don't ruin that. It makes debate inherently harmful and unfun, and I don't think engaging in such an intellectual activity should be either of those things.

If you got this far lol:

+.25 speaking points for each GOOD RuPaul's Drag Race reference ;)

I do weigh framework so if one team offers frame work and the other doesn't I'll default to theres. Otherwise I'll judge each around based on the agreed values/framework in each round. I am okay with critiques provided they are topical and relevant. I don't like spreading and expect that each debater will be respectful in round.

competed in LD for two years

went to nats for WS and Extemp

I understand most Circuit/Local level types of debate

spreading is okay just make sure you share your case in the round.

theory is okay just don't be abusive. If there's any type of abuse, the round goes to the opponent.

Don't get caught in minutiae please, focus on the big picture, impacts matter.

Sophomore at UNC who debated LD four years in North Carolina.

In HS, I only did traditional debate so while you can run progressive forms of debate and I'll listen, bear in mind I never debated it and thus am likely to not fully understand it. If you chose to do so, signpost VERY well and clearly articulate your case.

Remember, speak clearly, warrant your arguments, warrant your value structure, signpost as you go along, and GIVE VOTERS at the end of your last speech (2AR or 2NR).

Be respectful to everyone in the room, rudeness will dock you speaker points.

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

I'm a parent judge with not that much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

Speed wise, please do not spread.

When evaluating rounds, I look for who can convince me the best.

Emphasize your voter issues.

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

I am a Lay Judge, and look for consistency in your arguments. Please make sure you do not spread (speed read), or else i will not be able to understand your arguments and evaluate. Please make voter issues clear, so that I can make my decision easier. i would also prefer if your arguments were not too out-landish.

I'm a parent judge. I've judged locals before so I know the basics of LD. Please just LARP, weigh, and don't spread.

I enjoy strong framework. Present your case, support your case and weaken your opponents case. This is about you, so do your thing.

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

I have judged 3 or 4 tournaments during the past couple of years, but I am what might be described as a lay Judge.

I really appreciate contestants who speak clearly and articulate their positions well. Speaking overly fast will make it difficult to follow your point, a steady pace is best. I am okay with either short sentences or long contentions, as long as there is a broad consistency to your case - aff or neg.

I actively wipe my slate clean after each session and I enjoy seeing how good debaters can bring out the best points of both sides of contentious issues.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

camera update: 9/3/2021- I live in an apartment complex with spotty internet. So I will be defaulting to keeping my camera off during the speeches. If the speeches sound clear after the first two constructive lsu I’ll try turning my camera on. Also no need to ask me if I’m ready, just default that I’m ready, and if I’m not I’ll unmute myself and let you know.

TLDR: Not super in touch with recent trends in debate, and very heavily prefer policy. Speed is no problem for me, just start slower and slowly work up to about 80% Max speed. Please note if you’re reading Non T or Phil, please do a good job explaining it to me. Oftentimes in these rounds I’m not getting enough info about why I should be voting one way or the other. I do not disclose unless the decision was extremely easy. Otherwise I prefer to give detailed info on my ballot and am open for questions using the email chain that you sent me your case in.

1: LARP/ Substance

2: Kritik

3-4: Theory

5-Strike: Performance, High Phil

Add me to the email chain: abbusp@gmail.com (REMEMBER send me cards before your speech that you'll be reading. If you're spreading analytics send me that as well. If analytics will not be spread I don't need them in the doc)

1. Speed: Here's my take. I've been debating for a while so I can keep up with speed. HOWEVER, with everything being online clarity has become a HUGE issue. Please go much much slower than you normally would. You don't have to go at a lay pace, but just remember I only say clear twice, before I put my pen down. What I miss will be held against you.

2. Theory: Remember fairness and education come first. Debate is an activity about fairness, and theory is meant to address that. IT IS NOT meant to let you opt out of substantive arguments. For this reason, I don't really enjoy theory and RVI debates. Keep everything on the resolution. Theory just serves the purpose that the debater running the shell, lets me know the violation and why it should warrant dropping the other debater. The debater going against the shell, just defend yourself and move on, don't drop everything and go for winning off the RVI because it won't hold any weight for me.

3. Stylistic: I'm very lenient with speaker points and usually give extremely high speaks. Please give me concise voters in your final speeches. They will have the most magnitude for me because it allows me to determine what the main issues you are going for are. Please impact everything, don't just read random cards and move on. Also don't just card dump, I want to see you construct meaningful arguments.

4. VERY IMPORTANT: Please Read. Before your speeches I want the cards you will be reading. Too many competitors send the cards after their speech, at which point there is not enough time to evaluate the cards because the next speech has started. I want to be able to follow along as you read your cards. Please note that this means sign posting will be VERY important. If you're going 600 WPM, and not sign posting anything you've already lost me. SLOW DOWN On tags and authors. Let me hear those clearly before you ratchet up your speed. Any analytics or non cards not in the case doc need to be at a reasonable speed. You can spread what's on the doc.

Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com

I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.

I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)

Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.

I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.

Be nice and have fun!

Affiliation: Woodrow Wilson High School (DC- 2015-2020)

Other Coaching positions: T.A. Edison High School (VA -1993-1997), W.T. Woodson High School (VA--1997-2000).

Email: tim.stroud@k12.dc.gov. Please use the File Share function on NSDA Campus if it is available over an e-mail exchange.

Coach of 25+ years at the high school level. Coached debaters throughout the years who have excelled at the TOC, nationals, invitationals, etc. I think of myself as a tabula rasa judge. Beware when I have to do more work than the debaters in the round I am far less inclined to vote in a debater's favor. Simply put, the better debater is one who presents, defends, and ends their advocacy with a clear logical/analytical position based upon solid research and an understanding of the proposed resolution.

Avoid at all costs: Flex prep, tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, long roadmaps, time suck arguments, cond args in LD (if the intent isn't to debate it throughout the round, then don't put it out on the flow...), generic shells with absolutely no links to the resolution--Baudrillard, etc. IF YOUR advocacy IS TO DISRESPECT, QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF, OR MAKE A MOCKERY OF DEBATE please change your tactics OR consider finding another activity to engage in.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating policy, make a policy argument and support it accordingly. If you are debating LD, let's hear about the resolution. Tangential theory arguments that lack a clear link make the purpose of the resolution suspect. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain warrants and impacts and link back to the standards in order to provide a well researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are simply assertions and will be treated as such. If they are run and the opponent fails to point that out they are passing up an opportunity for an easy ballot. Same goes for warrantless case/plan spikes that are advocated for in the constructive and then neglected/punted for the remainder of the round which serve merely as a strategic time suck for the opponent. I am not a judge that will pretty much ever vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent. If you are offering 6 off case arguments in LD then I am probably listening to poorly constructed, warrentless claims that don't have a chance of overcoming affirmative presumption. Yup, I've actually voted on presumption arguments offered by the aff in the last year.

Neg: if the only thing run is a structural security K or overly general CP shells then be prepared to prove and defend specific links to the resolution. Aff debaters who can chip away at uniqueness, internal links, impacts, or alternatives are greatly rewarded.

Speed--I can flow it if you can get it out...however, if it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but excessive road maps, getting set up, outside of CX card checks, and things that should have been accomplished in CX or during prep time are a waste of time. Unless there are a slew of arguments that need to be reorganized for some reason at the top of the speech, simply sign-post as you speak.

RFD: If the tournament allows it I will provide my decision at the end of the debate. It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I have little tolerance for high school students who continue their advocacy during the RFD. If you would like to engage in a dialogue about the round during breaks in the tournament feel free to approach me in the hallway or cafeteria.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I coach my debaters to always put their best foot forward. That goes towards always defaulting toward the norm that the judge expects you to stand for CX, address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

Hello, I am a parent judge with one year of judging experience. Please speak clearly and no spreading. Be respectful.

Good luck!

Please speak slowly and clearly.

I've judged LD and PFD earlier and had been a debater myself in a different format.

I'm open to the various formats and delivery of speeches. Content matters more to me, the speaker has to maintain dignity about other speaker, any type of Abuse to any person, religion or culture is absolutely unacceptable.

I understand lay the most but larp is also fine.

I prefer speech delivery at a rate which has words clear to understand. Fast pace is ok, as long as words are clear.

I am a parent judge whose experience has been mostly on the local circuits. I simply ask that you speak clearly and NOT HASTILY so I can better follow your arguments. I have only judged traditional debates so keep that in mind.

Also, as a lay judge, I like time to think about my reason for decision so I prefer you not ask for RFD immediately after the round. Thank you and good luck!

I am a parent judge who would like to listen to a debate about a value criterion and the topic.  Please avoid speaking too quickly.  I will try to evaluate all arguments.

If you are looking for a round with theory, Ks, etc. please strike me.  

Email: asw263@cornell.edu

Hey! I'm Arthur Wayne and I did LD for Millburn High School for 4 years and was team captain my junior & senior years. I have extensive experience in both circuit and traditional debate, so I am receptive to literally any type of argument and would consider myself to be tab (won't carry any assumptions coming into the round).

Judging:

- K, Phil, tricks, theory/T, policy, traditional are all a-ok! Just have fun, flesh out your args, and be respectful of others

Speaks:

- in tech rounds, I will grant speaks based on strategy, efficiency, and I'll give extra speaks for any unique strategy/positions/arguments

- in traditional rounds, I will grant speaks based purely on your ability to persuade

- sign posting and overviews are v nice :)

Background: I’m a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Gender Studies & Communication, and I did both LD and policy (with a brief stint in PF) for Dallastown High School in Pennsylvania. I competed on both traditional and progressive circuits, so I’m pretty much cool with whatever you want to run. However, as a competitor, I mostly ran non-t affs, soft-left affs, and kritiks.

pronouns: she/her/hers

email chain: emiwhite@sas.upenn.edu

* I care a lot about respect and safety in-round. Debate has a tendency to be a really toxic/hostile environment sometimes, so please don't contribute to that. Similarly, if at any point during the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, feel free to stop the round and let me know. I will not tolerate debaters being egregiously disrespectful or inconsiderate of their opponents. This applies to actions done knowingly that make the round inaccessible (e.g. not flashing your case when spreading, not giving content warnings for sensitive topics, etc.) as well as how you speak to/about your opponent (e.g. excessively interrupting them or being overly condescending). TLDR: just be nice y'all, it's not that hard.

**If you spread, EMAIL ME AND YOUR OPPONENT YOUR CASE. Ideally this applies to prewritten analytics as well (or really anything that is typed out and sendable). I cannot stress this enough! If you don’t, I’ll probably dock speaks and be a much less happy judge. I like to think I’m pretty good at flowing at high speeds, but there’s always the chance that I miss something if I don’t have a copy of it, especially since audio can cut out on virtual platforms.

Kritiks: I love them! This was about 80% of what I did in debate, so I love seeing a good K round. However, a bad K debate is probably my least favorite thing to watch, so don’t think that I’ll vote for any kritik no matter what - you need to explain your position clearly, especially your alt.

Non-T affs: I read these for most of my junior and senior year, so I’m very comfortable rejecting/reinterpreting the topic as long as you tell me why I should and what your aff does instead. As far as T vs. a non-t aff — It’s not my favorite thing to see (I personally think reading a K or counter-method is more interesting and creative), but if it’s what you’re good at, go for it. aff still has to explain where they get offense and why topicality is bad, neg has to justify why the aff’s non-topical position is uniquely harmful/abusive, not just why defending the topic is good generally.

Phil/framework: I’m familiar with the basics (deont, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) more so than any other FW authors (especially really obscure ones). I’ll gladly judge other phil - I just may not have any experience with them, so you’ll have to explain it clearly and weigh well. If you could give a quick overview of the theory in non-jargony language during your 1ar/2nr that would also be super helpful. Know your position well and clarify exactly what offense does and doesn’t count under your framework, and you should be fine.

Theory: I generally find it to be unnecessary and used to make the round inaccessible. If there is legitimately no other way for you to respond to your opponent and/or they've done something really really abusive, then read theory. Otherwise, be creative and use logic to tell me why their argument doesn’t make sense - don’t rely on tricky wordings or surprise interps to get my ballot. Also slow down a bit and explain - I will miss something if you rattle off 3 standards in 5 seconds with minimal warranting.

Tricks: I'm ok with one or two spikes in an aff, but as far as a completely tricks case - please just don’t. I will not be amused, I will dock speaks, and you probably won’t get my ballot.

Lay parent judge. Please speak very slowly and clearly and persuasively explain why you won in your last speech. Refrain from using debate and resolution terminology without explaining. No progressive arguments. I do not disclose my decision.

I'm a recent college graduate who has judged a couple of LD tournaments but never participated in debate when I was in school. Since I'm a relatively new judge and don't judge often, excessive speed is counterproductive on the debaters' part (AKA I'm a traditional judge and don't recommend running progressive). I follow where the rounds are going, and expect to be led to the big arguments for either side. I value logical coherence and arguments with well-supported data that clearly link to the arguments.

Politeness and respect for your opponent and the judge is required.

Hey everyone! I'm Jessica, and I did four years of LD in North Carolina.

Full disclosure, I'm not a huge fan of progressive debate, so do avoid it if you can – that being said, I'll listen to anything you have to say as long as you present it clearly and explain it well. Please don't spread. I can handle a decently fast conversational speed, but the strength of your arguments will suffer if I can't understand you. Also, it's just not a good idea to try to cram too many arguments/evidence into the limited time you have; I'll always pick quality over quantity.

I really value debate as an educational activity and believe that a good debater should be able to get their point across without being sneaky or excluding their opponent (e.g., through overly complex arguments or jargon). Break things down, y'all. I will be flowing, but it's up to you to explain and emphasize your important points and make sure I get them. Warrant and impact your arguments, tell me how to weigh the round, signpost, give voters, all that good stuff. Try to find the clash rather than just restating your own case.

Other than that, please just be nice. Respect your opponent, don't be condescending, and don't be rude :) We're here for a good time! Feel free to ask me any questions before 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.