This is my first year as a debate coach and judge. I have a degree in Philosophy, and am experienced at considering the merits of arguments outside of the NSDA format.

I would consider myself a traditional judge; enunciation and clearly articulating fewer points is more effective than spreading to cover more ground. More importantly, if I can't follow your argument because you are speaking so quickly, I cannot and will not consider those points in weighing the round. Per NSDA guidelines, style and delivery is less important than substance, but if your substance is not conveyed because of your style, than it becomes relevant by default.

To that point, I prefer a rebuttal that is organized similarly to the opponent's argument rather than jumping around. Your argument is more effective if it is methodical. I don't believe that an argument is won by quantity over quality, so if you tell me that your opponent has dropped a point, tell me why that point matters. If it isn't as significant as the points your opponent successfully argues, than it doesn't matter that they dropped it.

Finally, I am not impressed by slippery-slope arguments that build a long chain of improbable events to conclude that your opponent's case leads inevitably to cataclysmic results. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and just because, for example, nuclear war is possible does not mean it is guaranteed or even plausible. You must articulate good evidence that it is likely.

For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

Respectful, clearly articulated debates.

Traditional judge
Speak clearly and convince me of your side of the case

Hello, My name is Raj and I am a parent judge (consider me as a lay judge) who has judged LD and PF in the past. I do take notes but please do not speak too fast and also outline which part of your case you are on (ex. contention 1 of your case or a rebuttal to your opponent). Please do both of these so that I can have clarity on what you are saying. Be respectful to your opponents and most importantly, have fun. Don't worry too much about speaks and do your best. Good luck!

I am a traditional judge from a traditional area of the country. I competed in LD, PF, Congress, Extemp, and other events when I was in high school in 2003-2006. I went to American University for undergrad and obtained a BA in Political Science (with a concentration in political theory) and Philosophy. I then went to law school and I am presently a practicing public defender in Pittsburgh. I have judged debate events sporadically since I graduated from high school.

I focus on the clarity and consistency of the argument, with technique trumping the truth of the argument. I am not a strict flow judge and expect that extensions of arguments will be supported by more than a conclusory statement that the debater has prevailed on that particular argument. I prefer to have clear voting issues at the end of the round in order to prevail.

I am very familiar with theory and will most likely be aware of any theoretical arguments you make. I am less familiar with kritick arguments, but I will entertain them.

I have no tolerance for rude and insulting behavior toward your opponent and will deduct speaking points accordingly. I do not consider it rude or insulting for the cross examining party to cut off someone who is filibustering rather than answering a question.

I am a traditional judge.

I would like to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Respect your opponent, no insults.

I am a traditional LD judge. I was primarily a Policy Debater, and do not like policy debate creeping into LD. Don't spread, and keep a high level philosophical focus.

I expect to see an articulate, well reasoned debate.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in high school, and have coached for the past two years with novice debaters. Most of my experience was in western Pennsylvania on a local level, but I did compete occasionally on the national circuit.

My judge paradigm is limited only by what I can understand, because I don't really have any preferences concerning how students should debate or how the round should play out. If you take sufficient time explain your arguments then you can do whatever your want. I'm fine with theory or k's or any other off args, but am not used to evaluating them based on the level of debate I usually judge nowadays. Speed is fine as long as I can flow (can follow the slower end of what is considered "spreading" but not ridiculous speeds). Still debaters should preference clarity over speed. If a point is especially important, slow down. 

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.