Damien Chuck Ballingall Memorial Invitational Virtual Edition
2020 — La Verne/Virtual, CA/US
Novice Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
This is my second year judging and I am not extremely experienced, but I am not completely new to this. I have judged and watched several events and styles over the last year. My daughter is writing this paradigm for me.
Please don't speak too fast, because I won't count the points on the flow If I can't understand anything you're saying. I strongly discourage you from running t-shells, but if you must, make sure you clearly outline exactly what you are doing and take me through each step. Don't run K's. Don't be extratropical and let the debate rest on topicality-- actually debate the resolution.
Make sure to actually explain the points you make. Don't just read a bunch of cards with no analysis. Also, please be patient with clarifying questions I may have, as things are a bit clunkier and less efficient on Zoom. Finally, respect your judge and your opponents! Remember that this is supposed to be a fun activity and that there's no need to be unnecessarily mean. Good luck and have fun!
Make sure you are speaking clearly and loud enough for me to hear. If you are in a room with others, react and clap for their speeches! Don't just remain stone-faced for everyone except the people on your team; it's a sign of poor sportsmanship. My ranking of other speeches isn't dependent on how well the audience reacts, so you don't have to worry that you clapping and laughing at someone else's speech will cause me to rank them higher.
Please put me on the chain and feel free to send any questions here: email@example.com
Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks. That being said, I probably will come down on policy side against the K if the debate is exactly even.
I don't have any familiarity with the CJR topic so please over explain if possible.
Being nice in round, evidence quality, and efficient line-by-line are the most important things to me / will be rewarded the most with speaks.
K: I agree with Julian here:
“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.”
CP: Lean neg pretty heavily on most theory but could go either way on process cps, depending on the quality / specificity of the cp and in-round theory debating. I won't judge kick unless told to.
DA: Nothing new to say really. Think that generic DAs are probably underutilized, so no worries going for those in front of me.
K Affs / FW: I went for framework many times in high school, so I judge these rounds with the experience of having been on the neg vs k affs more so than being on the aff vs fw. For affs, I find straight up impact turns / k’s of fw more persuasive than c/i + defining words in the rez. For the neg, I’m more of a skills / education impact person, but still will listen to fairness / clash impacts.
T: Please please give me more background on the topic than you would normally. I have no idea what the core of the topic, community consensus, or what the best core generics are. The team that more specifically describes what their vision of the topic usually seems to win these debates.
Speaker Points: Mine are probably too inflated. Will reward kind debaters who are enjoying themselves in the activity.
Robert J. Buscho, J.D. (La Reina HS)
Lincoln-Douglas Judging Paradigm (Can also apply to policy)
1, Big Picture: I try, to the best of my ability, to weigh the evidence and rhetoric presented by each side to determine “who did the proverbial better job of debating.” I tend to reward innovative reasoning and argument, espeically in rebuttals. Establish and maintain a significant impact in the round, and you will likely receive my ballot.
2. A slightly smaller picture: Hey, I grok it. This is a competitive endeavor. Humor, sarcasm, irony- these all work for me in a given round so long as contextually plausible. Personal abuse, insults, and disrespect – not so much.
3. Some other throughs
A. T/NNebel T T arguments,, generally, don't work with me. So long as the A has an objectively reasonable interpretation of the resolution, I'm not going to ballot on T (unless the A utterly mishandles the argument). As to Nebel-T, I'm currently agnostic and will listen to and evaluate those arguments on their relative merits.
B. Definitions/Values; I think generally these are a waste of time unlss you're setting up some critical position for rebuttals. Each minute you spend on defintions/values is a minute lost for reading killer evidence supporting your case. Plus, it's ahistorical. Neither Lincoln nor Douglas began their speeches by defining terms, etc. If you've got a great framework analysis make it and go on to your case or attacking the adversary's case.
C. Clash: I find it problematic to critic a round in which both sides read their respective cases and then strive, mightily, to avoid engaging each other's arguments. Without an argumentative context, these rounds are “two ships passing in the fog.” One of those ships will get a ballot which appears incomprehensible to at least one side in the round. I try to be non-interventionalist in that the teams define the debate and standards for me to resolve. Inviting me to resolve issues for you is a "fools errand." On the other hand, I'm a decided fan of "Occam's Razor" so the easiest route to a ballot is the one I will take. The essence of debate is argumentative clash.
D. Disclosure: I'm a big fan. My preference is to have A disclose it's case, and N following. At least, everyone knows what the big issues are. However, I consider myself bound by individual tournament rules, so I will follow those.
4. Concluding. I try to be non-interventional in the sense that it's the duty of the round participants to frame the debate and guide my decision-making process. In doing so, I want the in-round participants to enjoy themselves and have fun. As to other issues, I invite and encourage pre-round questions so long as someone is not attempting to pre-condition my ballot.
Hi, I am a first time judge. I do not allow spreading, and please speak clearly and concisely. Please time each other during the round just to be clear.
I'm a third year debater at The Meadows School. I primarily debate in Lincoln Douglas.
I would like to be on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Im okay if you read fast, but only if you're capable of it. If you are unable to pronunciate cleary when reading fast then I would prefer if you didn't.
Hi! I’m Jessa Glassman and I debated for Harvard-Westlake and am now a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. I didn’t debate much last year, but I bid at 3/3 tournaments I went to giving me 2 quals and 6 career bids. Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
My opinions on debate are very heavily influenced by my coaches Jasmine Stidham and Scott Phillips, as well as many of my old teammates. Spencer Klink and I share a brain so please reference his paradigm if you want a more complete picture of how I’ll judge the round because this probably isn't the most comprehensive.
(If you’re going to take one thing away from this, please remember that an argument is a claim, warrant, and an impact. That is truly the formula to success!)
- Debate is about discourse, argumentation, and thought, not people. Please be respectful so you and your opponent can have an educational and valuable experience. At the same time remember it really isn’t that deep.
- Aim for 80ish% speed. Both because of any potential technical issues that come with virtual rounds and because my brain has not been in debate mode for a while.
- I’ll only vote for arguments that I understand based on how you explain them in the round- this applies to both literature terminology AND debate jargon. Relying solely on vacuous phrases like ‘switch side debate’, ‘fiat is illusory’, or ‘information is dissuasive’ to do the work for you defeats the purpose of the activity. Do yourself a favor and explain/impact things further to make sure you’re making a complete argument.
- I read a soft left aff almost every round and went for the K a lot (typically some iteration of Fem IR for both), so I am best to evaluate these rounds. I’ll still be a pretty good judge for you if you read policy arguments, and while I am not well versed in phil affs/NCs, I’ll do my best to keep up and am open to evaluating them given your explanation meets my threshold. I believe the aff should at the very least be in the direction of the topic so I’m pretty sympathetic to T-Framework, but I am open to entertaining these debates and could see myself voting either way. I tossed T in the 1NC pretty frequently and collapsed to it relatively often too, so I'll also be good for topicality rounds.
- None of the preferences in the bullet point above matter more than execution. I am more impressed by clear, in-depth, logical arguments, solid weighing, strategic choices, and efficiency than the positions you choose to read. While K rounds can be my favorite, they can very quickly turn into my worst nightmare. Do what you want and what you’re good at…. these are only guidelines. Except for my hard and fast rules below :)
· Always read frivolous theory (a shell without a legitimate abuse story) and tricks (a prioris, skep triggers, nibs, the usual cast of characters) in front of me! These debates foster so much clash and discussion and I’d absolutely love to spend my weekend watching you justify illogical arguments so I can joyfully tank your speaks and give you a loss! Do it I dare you <3
· No RVIs on T… and probably not worth your time to justify them for most theory too. A quick reasonability argument coupled with an explanation of why their argument is silly is sufficient for me to dismiss the shell.
· Disclosure is good.
· ROB/ROJ/etc. are unnecessary. Just weigh arguments and read framing cards.
· Please collapse.
· Please have fun and be yourself! It’s a requirement!
i graduated from the harker school in 2020, where i primarily competed in policy debate. second semester senior year, i qualled to the toc in ld/made late elims at a few tournaments. i'm now a first-year at uchicago and coach/judge for harker.
please put me on the email chain – firstname.lastname@example.org
i like technical, smart debating, particularly of policy arguments. i like even more when these debates are a robustly developed 1-2 off rather than a proliferation of unexplained arguments.
i have come to the conclusion that i do not enjoy watching, nor do i know how to evaluate, ld phil debates, as well as high theory arguments. i'm also not the best judge for a very technical 2ar on theory, especially if the 1ar is fast and/or blippy.
you will almost surely lose if you read tricks, silly theory arguments, spikes, or weird ld arguments using acronyms (including but not limited to rvi, nib, afc, or any spec argument). i will listen to these, but the sillier/less intuitive the argument, the lower my threshold for responses (and your speaks) will be.
online debate notes
please be extra clear & go about 70% speed! after online camp + judging practice rounds, i would probably prefer if you sent analytics, especially theory, t standards, and permutation texts.
if you do not locally record speeches in the event that you drop off a call, i will flow only what i caught. will not let you regive any part of a speech.
more specific thoughts
from miles gray: i think the purpose of any one debate round is to determine whether the benefits of an example of the resolution outweigh its harms and/or opportunity costs. i will, by default and by preference, adopt this position when considering arguments in a debate, and am very skeptical of reasons to evaluate a debate in any other way.
some things that i like seeing in debates
- big picture framing and judge instruction
- nuanced, fully developed arguments rather than "run and gun" strategies
- well-researched strategies that display content mastery
- good disclosure (this does not mean i am a fan of disclosure theory)
some arguments i am likely to be persuaded by
- appeals to reasonability, especially on theory
- plans good/pragmatics arguments vs. nebel t
- judge kick
- framework versus planless affs
- util good & extinction outweighs
some arguments i am unlikely to be persuaded by
- personal callouts
- framing contentions without substantive answers
- process counterplans (but vastly prefer the aff to make competition arguments rather than theory presses)
- conditionality bad, or that any non-condo theory is a reason to reject the team
- anything in the realm of spark or wipeout or warming impact turns
- asking me to ignore large parts of the debate (evaluate after x speech, must concede fw or contention, indexicals, etc.)
- frivolous theory and tricks (the bar for answering these is on the floor)
- inserting rehighlighting is fine
- evidence quality is very important to me. if you have very good cards, tell me, and i will read them! conversely, point out that your opponents' cards are bad (i think the state of evidence in LD is abysmal)
- i feel comfortable voting on clipping/egregiously miscut evidence/other ethics problems even if the other team does not point them out (if it is a novice debate, i will likely not vote on clipping to maximize the educational experience for both debaters)
- please be kind and respectful! there is a distinction between being sassy/sarcastic and being rude – if you cross that line, i will be very unhappy
if i am judging you in public forum
...you can probably ignore most of this paradigm. in high school, i did not compete in pf, but i am familiar with the differences between pf and ld/policy and will try to adapt my judging accordingly. regardless, here a few things that might differentiate me from other pf judges:
- i prefer flow/circuit style debate, and i will make my decision based off of technical drops and extensions. how "pretty" your speeches are will not affect how i evaluate your arguments.
- i firmly believe your evidence should be in the form of direct quotations (ideally cards *with full citations available*). in my mind, paraphrasing has the same weight as analytical arguments, and arguments from the opposing team to discount paraphrased evidence will be very persuasive to me.
- arguments need to be extended in every speech for me to evaluate them at the end of the debate. if something is not extended in summary, you will not be allowed to bring it up in ff. consequently, using summary to choose *a few* important offensive and defensive arguments is in your best interest.
- i care little about pf formalities (who asks the first question, sitting/standing during grand crossfire, etc.)
- speed is fine, but please maintain clarity.
I've been judging tournaments since 2017 - mostly debate (LD/PF/Parli) but some speech events as well.
Things I like in debate:
- Debating on the resolution
- Running traditional framework and making it clear with clash and weighing mechanisms
- Good, explicit speech structure and signposting
- Strong clash
Things I do not like in debate:
- T-shells / theory
- Narratives, poetry
- Falsified evidence
Things I am probably OK with in debate:
- CPs and basic LARPing, where permitted by tournament rules
Things I am probably not OK with in debate:
- Highly implausible impacts
Please include me in email chains; if I don't hear it, I won't flow it.
Ask me for my email address at start of round.
please put me on the email chain! - email@example.com
please go at about 75% your top speed and don't rely on jargon to replace warrants. i will call clear 3 times before i start deducting speaker points.
other important info:
- slow down on tags, phil-heavy positions, theory/T, and analytics
- well executed weighing, collapsing, overviews, etc. will make evaluating the debate a lot clearer for me - please do this!
- theory defaults: reasonability, no RVIs, drop the argument
- dislike frivolous theory, i will vote for it if won but will not be happy. in these cases i am very partial to reasonability
- if you plan on reading dense phil or non-stock K, please explain it well
- i think affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise. i ran framework often as a debater and have voted on non-topical affs as a judge. on that note, i will vote on pretty much anything if it's explained well and not blatantly offensive
- if you are an experienced debater and are debating someone who is clearly a novice, i expect you to adjust accordingly (ie. don't go top speed, don't read 10 off-case positions, etc.) you will not get higher than a 28 if you do this.
- will reward slower but more efficient debaters with lots of speaker points
- please be nice and respectful to each other! don't be sexist / homophobic / racist / etc.
Hi! I'm Alex Martin, a former La Reina LD debater. I'm currently going into my second year of college. My pronouns are she/her.
I competed for 5 years and attended local and national tournaments. I also did some college debate in my freshman year.
It's been a minute since I've listened to fast rounds so just make sure to add me to the email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
also don't be rude in cross ex and be respectful!
Add me to your email chain: email@example.com
Currently, I coach policy debate at CSU Fullerton & coach speech/debate at Honor Academy.
I have been coaching/judging a breadth of speech/debate events since 2017, my experience leaning heavily towards HS/MS parliamentary debate, lincoln-douglas, policy debate, & individual events. My experience competing begins in 2012 & is as follows:
- NFA-LD: 1 year (IVC)
- NPDA Parli: 1.5 years (IVC)
- Policy (NDT-CEDA): 1 year (CSUF)
- Individual Events (AFA-NFA): 4 years (CSULB/IVC/CSUF)
As a policy debater (2A/1N), my experience was exclusively kritikal/performative - the cases I would run were a mash of feminism & futurisms, sci-fi, &/or cyborgs. On neg, I ran set col, fem IR, academy, & read a lot of soft-left answers on-case. In general, the breadth of my experience across various debate formats has allowed me to be very particular with the debates that I enjoy watching. Still, I'll watch anything.
Truth > Tech
Long story short, I'll watch & vote for your K aff if you do the work to provide me with an advocacy statement/Plan w/ kritikal advantages & solvency throughout. This means that off-case Ks should meet the same burden. A caveat: Treat your K alt like a CP. At the moment you introduce the alternative, your neg presumption disappears - I want to hear reasons to prefer why the alt solves vs whatever Aff is running. In-round links for any Ks are excellent offense & performance is always welcome here. Rap, play guitar, break your timers, I ain't stopping you*.
Theories of power/authors I'm quite familiar with: Black humanist scholarship (Wilderson, S. Hartman, Z. Jackson, Fanon), poststructuralism/biopower (Derrida, Foucault), feminist scholarship (Anzaldua, Haraway), set col (Burkhart, Mignolo, Tuck & Yang).
*I will listen to most any theory of power that challenges the normative structures that govern debate, so long as you do the footwork to show how said structures are upheld in the current round (in-round links), how they have fostered exclusion in debate (uniqueness), & how your model is key to changing the state of debate (solvency).
Case Debate (Plans/CPs/Adv/DAs)
For many of the debates I judge, this is likely where all your "who is this judge" paradigm questions will be answered. Let's talk:
- Plans/CPs/Perms: I love a good permutation debate any day. CPs are excellent; however, the moment Neg introduces the CP, they also give up presumption. Sound familiar? At that point, the debate shifts & Neg must solve - the funniest & most effective arguments to me were those in which CP connected to the DA.
- PICs/PIKs: I will not do the footwork to determine whether or not the PIC/PIK is unfair. I would strongly prefer if Aff runs their generic "PICs Bad" theory blocks against this.
- Impact Calc: I vibe with the traditional voters of magnitude, likelihood, timeframe, & solvency. Something I liked to do as a competitor (because...petty) was making 'drops' a voter. Terminal impacts are big for me both in the traditional magnitude sense of "X impact outweighs X," but also in that I want to hear why a conceded argument/refutation matters in the grand scheme of the round. Your ctrl-F impacts alone have no power here. I always commend excellent round vision in rebuttals.
- Refutations: This especially applies to HS/MS debaters, my decisions are very heavily determined by your level of engagement with your opponent's case. Yes, extend & defend your own case, but please cross-apply your subpoints/evidence as answers to your opponent. If you use refutation language (non-uniques, turns, impacts outweighs, solvency take-out, etc.), I will immediately perk up & you will notice. Offense over defense any day. And yes, this applies to procedural fairness/education & counter-standards too.
- TVAs are just Plans without solvency (sorrynotsorry), but again, I will not do the footwork to say this for you.
- Solvency is the real homie in any debate.
- [Parli/CA LD Specific] Contentions: These should be terminally impacted; additionally, I like to see clash on the framework level with regards to your value/value criterion. Hearing how you meet your opponent's criterion better than they do & going so far as to make the meeting of values a voting issue is the easiest way to my heart & my ballot.
FW/Topicality debates are excellent, so long as there is clearly articulated in-round abuse (i.e. violation). I will consider your procedural impacts; however, I will expect Aff to do more than just make a generic "we meet argument" in response to the interpretation. You'll have better luck with making more offensive arguments through providing a fire counter-interpretation, some counter-standards, &...please no RVIs, ok? Ok.
[Parli Specific] I love theory sheets, but I love creative uses for T/FW beyond just stacking them & kicking 3/4 of your T shells in the LOR. Trichot is a cool argument too.
My stance on this has changed over the years & will continue to change as I continue hearing emerging perspectives on the matter. Spreading is only effective if it is equitable; otherwise, outspreading your opponents can quickly become an exclusionary & ableist practice. The question of whether or not I can comprehend your spread is not the question you should be asking yourself. Instead, you should ask your opponent "are you cool with spreading?"
However, this position is a general one. Practices of spreading are specific to the format of debate that I am judging:
[Policy/TOC LD] Go fast. Just remember that the debate will immediately shift upon the introduction of a Speed K or ableism arguments that center spreading as a bad practice.
[CA LD/PF] Spreading is generally disallowed on the grounds of maintaining this format equitable for all participants. I intend to abide by these guidelines - don't spread.
[Parli] Spreading in Parli can quickly get messy because a) there are no cards & b) your opponent cannot follow along with your evidence. So, I'd rather not hear an attempt to spread for a half written-out DA with blank IL subpoints where your inner extemper can truly shine. Signpost clearly, be considerate of your opponent's calls to 'clear,' & I'll follow along if you're just a naturally fast speaker. There's absolutely a difference between fast speaking & spreading - find it, navigate it.
I am the head speech and debate coach for my school. I keep a rigorous flow, but I'd still consider myself a traditional judge. Speed for its own sake is something I disdain, but I can follow it somewhat. I would only vote for theory on topicality grounds or for actual abuse. Theory breaks debate, so you will need to convince me that the debate is impossible because of a real violation. Just because your opponent drops or mishandles your thin T shell does not mean a concession has occurred: tread carefully. I suppose I'd vote for a K but you will need to explain it very well. Your opponent dropping a poorly linked K is not an auto-victory.
UC Berkeley ‘21
Okemos High School ‘18
My name is Manav Rathod and I am a student at UC Berkeley. I did 4 years of policy debate at Okemos High School (Okemos, MI). Senior year I qualified to the TOC with 3 bids. In high school, I mainly read Kritikal arguments (Afropessimism, Cap, Psychoanalysis, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Queer Theory) on both the aff and neg, however, don’t let that influence your thoughts on me as a judge. I have found many “policy” debates much more interesting/enjoyable than many “k v k” debates. Go for whatever you think is the best strategy to win the debate and execute it to the best of your ability – I will be happy regardless of the specific content.
There is no argument I am not willing to listen to. Debate is a space to explore your intellectual interests and be creative, so you should take advantage of that. So, if you like going for the politics DA, go for it. However, you should refrain from arguments that directly attack a person’s identity (such as racism good, sexism good, etc.). I am perfectly ok with listening to extinction good.
Tech > truth – as long as an argument has some warrant attached to it, it is true until addressed by the other team. I will do my best to protect the 2NR.
Topic Knowledge – I have some familiarity with the topic, however, it will benefit you to explain complicated nuances and to spell out acronyms (only once).
I flow on my computer and like being able to line arguments up.
My email is manav (dot) rathod (at) gmail (dot) com. I would like to be added to the email chain. You can also email me if you have any questions about my paradigm or want additional feedback about the round.
I will try to keep speaks in the range of 28 – 29.5.
Speaker points will be determined by your persuasiveness, clarity, and strategic mindset. Smart debaters will always outspeak debaters who are just really clear.
Being funny, referencing TV shows, using easy to understand examples (especially in K debates), etc. will boost your speaks.
I won’t hack for your K – you must do the work of explaining your argument.
I don’t mind a long overview, but I would prefer it if all relevant parts could be moved to the line-by-line. I would prefer it if links were done somewhere on the line-by-line (I don’t care where just don’t put them in the overview). Also, labeling links with cool names is good.
Specificity is key – if you aren’t doing the work to show why the 1AC specifically is bad (by pulling lines from their evidence and contextualizing your 1NC cards to the action of the plan), I am likely going to buy the perm solves. You don’t need links to the plan, but you should try to contextualize your generic links to the 1AC as much as possible.
You don’t need an alt, but you should spend time framing what my ballot means in a world where there is no alt to resolve the K’s impacts.
“K tricks” are fine but be smart with them – don’t just throw stuff at the wall and see if something sticks.
FW is important – you should very clear offense here as well as defensive arguments. Having good framing cards in the 1NC (especially if you are going one-off) is important. I can be persuaded that I shouldn’t evaluate the plan.
Demonstrating robust knowledge of your theory, as opposed to constantly reading blocks off your computer, will likely boost your speaks.
FW should never be “Ks bad.” Winning the FW debate for the Aff requires having a clear reason why your model of debate is good (e.g. fairness, political deliberation, etc) and making sure you answer all the neg’s tricks (e.g. Antonio 95, fiat is illusory, etc.). Being technical here is very key and I can be convinced to weigh only the consequences of plan action.
Perms should be thoroughly explained by the 1AR.
I think a lot of the common “policy tricks” (pragmatism, extinction first, etc.) make a lot of intuitive sense, but you still need to do a good job establishing them.
Coming into the debate with a strong understanding of the neg’s position will help you immensely, so you should be reading their cards and making sure you use cross-x to really understand their argument. It will make it easier to find their weak spot.
K v K Debates
I can be convinced not to give the Aff a perm, but a lot of the neg’s arguments for why I shouldn’t are usually quite silly, but must be answered by the Aff.
Both teams need to have a robust number of historical examples.
Links and net-benefits to the perm should be clearly labeled.
While I read a K-Aff in high-school, I am very persuaded by a lot of the arguments by FW teams. You can definitely go for procedural fairness as an impact. I also like arguments about truth-testing/argumentative refinement and research. Explaining the importance of each these in the context of predictable limits can make a very easy neg ballot.
I am not very persuaded by impacts like dogmatism or state good. While I think there is some merit to the dogmatism impact, I haven’t heard a very strong argument about why that would outweigh any offense the Aff generally goes for. I think truth-testing functions as a much more persuasive defensive argument to mitigate a lot of the Aff offense. State good is more convincing to me as a K of the aff’s refusal of certain forms of political engagement.
TVAs don’t need to solve the Aff but should somehow align with the Aff’s criticism of the status quo. Having a card isn’t necessary but would be cool.
I am perfectly fine with a short 1NC shell with no cards other than definitions.
Impact turn stuff and you will probably be fine.
You don’t need a w/m.
You don’t even necessarily need a c/I – but it will make it harder for you to win unless you go for debate bad, which is perfectly fine.
Slow down when explaining your DAs – teams often breeze through several 1 or 2 sentences DAs that I can’t follow. Your 2AC analysis should have a clear warrant as to why the neg’s interpretation is bad, what the impact to that is, and how your interpretation solves. Examples here are key.
Defense is important, don’t forget it.
You should be very clear and upfront about why the TVA or reading it on the neg doesn’t solve.
Not much to say here. Impact calc is good and should be done sooner rather than later.
I don’t have many thoughts about CP theory – so do whatever you like. Words pics are probably not cool, but if you want to go for it.
You should probably have a solvency advocate. Using 1AC lines to justify a cp will boost your speaks.
I enjoy a really good T debate. Both teams should be doing a good job explaining what debate looks like under different interpretations of the topic.
I love a good impact turn debate. DeDev, Heg Good, Heg Bad, Warming Good, Extinction Good, etc. I love them all. Especially, against K-Affs or new Affs they can be very strategic and should be heavily utilized.
I will vote on new affs bad – given the neg can explain a coherent impact.
Don't clip. I will keep my eye out for it. If I catch it, I will warn you (unless it was egregious). If I catch you doing it again, I will give you 0 speaks and the loss. I will also allow the round to continue to the end.
If you believe the other team is clipping, start recording them and present the recording to me after the speech. I will listen and decide. You won't be penalized for calling out another team for clipping, as long as you do so in a manner that allows the round to continue smoothly.
If you are reading unhighlighted cards, I will expect you to read the whole thing, unless you clarify before your speech. If you don't, I will consider that as clipping.
Debated for Downtown Magnets for 4 years, currently at (but not actively debating for) USC
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Short Version: Debate whatever argument you want, don't be mean (because then I'll be mean when giving out speaks), and have fun :)
- If I'm not typing, you need to slow down or articulate your analytics/rebuttals better.
- Don’t clip cards - If you mark the card, make sure to send the rest of the room the marked version. If your opponent calls for a marked card and I see you going to mark it, expect a dock in speaks.
- I did policy debate, which means I'm not the most familiar with LD. As such, feel free to ask me if I do anything you might consider "typical" for an LD judge to do for you, because I might not.
CP: Should solve the case or at least a portion of it, and is competitive to the plan. I don't mind voting for Consultation/Agent CP’s/PICs, but I'm receptive to well-argued theory against these CPs.
DA: Contextualize the link. If the link’s warrants are not in the context of the aff and they point this out, I’ll probably err aff.
K-affs: I’ve run these affirmatives before (and they're definitely interesting + engaging to watch). I’ll vote on your advocacy if you can explain to me why your model is valuable. I'll flow your performance or anything you do in your speech (make sure to extend them! don't spend half of your speech on a performance you won't use for evidence later!). When answering FW, be creative with the definitions and explain why I should value your definition. Just criticizing and discussing the resolution isn't enough. If you don't affirm the resolution, be ready to defend your model of debate.
- PS: That being said, high theory Baudrillard affs? I'm probably not going to have any idea what you're talking about. You've been warned.
Kritiks: I love a well-run K - I think these are the most interesting debates to judge. That being said, I'm not sympathetic to badly-explained Ks that no one in the round (not even the team running it) understands. Explain your K. Tell me what to focus on. Explain how the aff entrenches x and how that leads to a bad implication, how the link turns the aff or outweighs it, the productiveness of my ballot if I vote negative, how the alternative resolves something that outweighs the aff. Also if there's a long OV or FW block let me know to put it on another flow.
T - USFG/FW: Be creative! Don't defer to your same definition of "traditional debate" and "USFG" if you don't have to (although I'll obviously vote for it if it's well-argued). Give me a definition that creates a model of debate where it is possible to solve for the aff’s impacts. If you can contextualize your education/fairness impacts against the 2AC and/or explain how you turn the aff, I’ll be loving your debate. Generic FW blocks that just articulate fairness and education without reference to the aff are honestly unconvincing.
Theory/Topicality: Convince me that your model of debate is better than theirs. Obviously, if theory is dropped by the opponents and you go for it, I’ll vote for it unless something goes horribly wrong. However, if the other team is answering your arguments, it comes down to competing methods of debate and you have to tell me why I should prefer your model. That means impacts, standards, the whole shebang.
I have experience in mainly Lincoln-Douglas Debate, both as a debater and a judge. As a debater I understand the basics of the other categories but may ask a few questions beforehand to make sure I judge properly.
tech > truth (Essentially I will judge only on the information that you provide in round, I may ask for copies of your case to ensure I have all the correct information.)
I understand that virtual debating may be completely new territory, should your audio quality decrease in any way, I will inform you and we can take care of the speech time as necessary.
Be clear when explaining the biggest impacts of your argument; the benefits of your side should be obvious. I don't usually flow during cross-examination periods but I will make note of what is discussed during that time period in case you choose to reference those discussions later in the round.
Do not be rude to your opponent. I understand the competitiveness and intensity of debate rounds, but that is never an excuse to be blatantly rude or disrespectful to your opponent.
LD Judging Preferences:
I'm alright with speed during speeches. I may interrupt you to let you know that you are going too fast at any time during the round. However, if you are spreading just to force your opponent out of the debate, I will drop the debater.
Have clear links and connections, no matter what the card says it has to be proven relevant to the topic at hand.
Framework is crucial, it is the defining factor of LD. Therefore, there is no need to overdo it but you definitely should not skip it altogether.
In terms of Theory and Kritiks, I am not well versed in these subjects, so I highly suggest avoiding such unless there is proper grounds for it and you are able to explain it well.
Make sure to give off-time roadmaps when appropriate. Stay organized, especially in rebuttal speeches. SIGN-POSTING IS KEY in order for me to follow your flow and arguments.
When giving your rebuttals and final speeches, I encourage you to use voters to your advantage. Make it crystal clear why I should vote for you in that round.
Voting Criteria: (for all categories)
I will do my very best to give a wholistic look at the round before making my decision. With that, please note that utilizing voters effectively only helps you.
In terms of arguments and rebuttals, make your defenses and offenses clear. Dropped arguments will hurt you only if they are pointed out, I will not look for what you dropped. Make all links and impacts as clear as you possibly can.
Speaker points are pretty clear for me. I give anywhere between 27-29 unless you're so perfect I might give you a 30. You'll get a 27 if your speeches are alright but need a bit of work. A 28 is average debating, you didn't do fantastic but you didn't fail. A 29 is above average debating, eloquent, well-thought out, and easy to follow.
Any rudeness, hate speech, harmfulness, or profane language will have your speaks dropped all the way to the minimum and you will be dropped on the ballot for exactly that.
- show confidence
- don't go too fast
- avoid "emmm...", "ah...", etc.
- emphasize value & value criterion
- know what you're talking about
- look at the camera or at least the screen
- don't look at the side
- don't search things up
- look at the judge
- don't read off everything
- try to avoid shaking around and/or playing with your pen
- some hand movements and change in facial expressions
I like Ks, but admittedly sometimes I can be a little slow. Please throughly explain them to me. Even if I am familiar with them I want a team to throughly explain their critical solvency or their alternative to me.
I don't enjoy a lot of straight up policy debates, but I'm also not against them. Run what you wanna run and don't let my standpoints deter you from your debate aspirations.
I enjoy debates with fiery clash, but I expect everyone to be respectful to one another. A debater's speaker points will be lowered if they are being disrespectful because it's just not cool and I don't vibe with it.
Spreading is fine, if it is done correctly. Please enunciate and project! Do not mumble your words quickly. This makes evaluating the debate easier because I do not need to decode the mumbling.
Please add me to the email chain.
Please do not spread.