La Salle Forum Invitational 2020
2020 — NSDA Campus, PA/US
Open LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Current School Affiliation
Speech & Debate Program Coordinator
Elkins High School (Elkins, WV)
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)
Overview I'm a traditional coach in a traditional circuit that has a general knowledge of progressive LD. 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 abuse.
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.
I am a parent from State College High School. I judged Speech last year. I am new to LD. Please avoid excessive spreading.
Looking forward to the new experience.
Good luck to all competitors.
MINUS .1 SPEAKS EVERY MINUTE YOU'RE LATE ENTERING THE ROOM AFTER TECH CHECK (excluding the first three minutes). So if tech check is 11:45, and you're not in the room by 11:48, you will lose .1 speaks every minute until you either enter or are DQd by not entering. The floor is not the round start time, the clock keeps running. I don't care if you keep prepping when you're in the room, I just don't feel like dealing with tab checking in or wasting anyone's time. Be in the room by tech check (I will accept reasonable excuses to void this penalty). This is also voided if I am at all late myself.
Lexington Update 1/13:
I did LD and Extemp at La Salle College High School 2014-2018. I have coached/judged with La Salle since 2018, at some local tournaments and many national invitationals.
LARP/Policy judging is where I'm best, but I never mind a traditional, theory, or K round (K affs cool too). I've judged performance rounds, and I think they're great, but if you want good feedback, don't pref me high because I don't give great feedback in those rounds. I'm ok with speed but for online debate, cap it at like 80% of top speed. Weigh your impacts. Don't be rude. Debate is a game, but not a game worth making your opponent having a breakdown. If you have any specific questions, plz ask before round.
These are the best debates and LDers ought to be prioritizing these cases. I will always enjoy a policy debate. Make your plans and counterplans as specific and weird as you like.
I'm more than capable of judging a theory debate, but I'm not as caught up in the style/terminology as I used to be. If your underview is half of your aff and it's full of a ton of blippy one liners, and you intend to run it every round, don't pref me high. I think UVs are necessary to check abusive theory moves by the neg, but I'm not a fan when it's the main tool the aff will be using to win. Also not a fan of blippy shells/tricks/etc. If you're going for T or something else, actually do it for real. Generally, if you only like to debate theory, pref me low (but if you get me as a judge, that doesn't mean I won't hear theory/it's a bad strat).
I didn't run Ks much as a debater, but I'll gladly vote off them. Make the link clear. Make sure there is an alt. It's more difficult for me to buy a link of ommission and will be more sympathetic to args against. I'm not always very familiar with specific authors/lit, but generally I understand the arguments themselves.
I think performance cases are really interesting to judge, but if you're going to run performance I'm probably not your judge. I've voted for them in the past but I won't be able to give you as good feedback as more circuit-y judges on what you can do better.
If you're a traditional debater, don't worry about all of what you just read. I mean, consider it, but it doesn't mean I will loathe a traditional round. I enjoy slow, heavy framework rounds when that's what the debaters have settled on.
But if you're going to debate framework, debate framework. If you just say, "well, the aff doesn't uphold quality of life, so it's a bad framework," that doesn't count!
Things I'm not particularly inclined towards:
From least worst to most worst:
- saying that fairness isn't a voter
- "util justifies slavery" or arguments of that ilk
- Nebel T, or any "bare plurals" nonsense. If you want to debate whole res, say you want to debate whole res and stop hiding behind the name Nebel or other dumb theory args.
- disclosure theory (if you read this, as long as your opponent so much as breathes a semblance of a response to it, high likelihood I'm not gonna evaluate it)
- "1AR Theory bad" or "the aff doesn't get 1AR theory"
- nihilism/death good
- "This is LD, and X isn't allowed in LD"
- I will not consider "Climate Change not real/climate impacts overblown." CC is real and existential. We're done with that nonsense. It's not 2010 anymore.
Tech over truth, generally.
If you're reading something with big impacts like nuke war, econ collapse, etc., please actually have a card that says it's going to happen. Don't assume that when a card says "there will be dire consequences" or something like that means "nuke war." Powertagging's not cool.
Minus .25 speaks every time I hear "I/we don't take stance on that." You're in Debate. Take a stance.
I don't care if you sit or stand.
Flex prep is cool.
As mentioned earlier, debate is a game. It's not war. If you clearly outmatch your opponent, be reasonable.
Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.
Because apparently I judge PF, too.
1) I don't understand some of the jargon, but I understand most/all the concepts.
2) Framing arguments should be allowed.
3) Most of my judging philosophy from above still applies. Please signpost, clearly say your authors/year, and do good weighing.
I believe my LD philosophy applies. If there's something specific you're wondering about, just reach out. Haven't judged a whole lot of policy so might've missed a part of the paradigm.
If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me at firstname.lastname@example.org
I am an attorney, and based on my experience and training, I will be looking for clarity and consistency in your argument, as well as the persuasiveness of your oral advocacy. I value being given a "road map" at the outset of an argument and the speaker sticking to it. Choose your words wisely. I am more likely to be persuaded if your argument consists of a few thoroughly detailed points that are carried through to rebuttals rather than a large volume of under-developed assertions that get dropped along the way. I also appreciate a speaking style that is reasonably paced and easy to understand. Moreover, I expect all debaters to treat one another with courtesy and respect. Please keep your camera on during the entire debate and keep yourself muted if you are not speaking.
I have been judging and coaching Lincoln-Douglas debate for 5 years. Based on what I’ve learned and my interpretation of the unique aspects of Lincoln-Douglas debate, the following describes my judging paradigm.
Lincoln-Douglas DSebate debate is a clash of values. The value represents a means to a world “as it should be.” Thus, the debater that proves persuasively that their case would advance the world to a point that is closer to what it should be best will likely win the round. Here are some specific points that I believe are important to help persuade me:
- Analysis – The debater will clearly present a logical argument and also effectively refute the opponent’s case. A better case will also leave me with fewer unanswered questions about the case and the connections between its evidence and argument. A better case will also demonstrate clearly the debater's thoughtfulness in preparing a well-rounded case capable of sustaining itself in the face of a persistent inquisition about its evidence-based arguments and its ability to persuade me to believe that their case renders the world a better place than the alternative being presented in the round.
- Proof – There should be a sufficient quantity of high-quality evidence to support the case. More evidence is not always better. Connections between contentions and values should be explicit and clear.
- Organization - There should be a logical and orderly presentation throughout the round.
- Refutation/ Clash – The better debater will demonstrate the ability to critically analyze the opponent’s arguments and develop clear and logical responses with the effective use of evidence and examples.
- Delivery – The speech must be understandable, interesting, and persuasive. An LD debater should demonstrate effective oral communication skills including effective reading; clear and understandable delivery; persuasive vocal argumentation; presence; and eye contact. “Spreading” during rounds is discouraged for this reason – instead of overwhelming your opponent with speed that renders you unintelligible, a superior ability to identify and present the best arguments concisely is a much better representation of analytical acumen and the intent of LD debate.
The above criteria apply to progressive debaters as well. For any debaters who wish to advance a progressive case: please understand that I will likely find it difficult to understand and judge your progressive case as effectively as a more experienced judge. Do not interpret my difficulty in judging a progressive case on its merits as a sign of disrespect or disinterest. Conversely, I am typically quite fascinated by such cases. However, my interest in and respect for well-developed progressive cases does not render my ability to judge them reasonably or adequately any more likely. For any progressive cases, please note, therefore, that while I will do my best to judge your case, there is likely to be much of it that I struggle to integrate into my evaluation, try as I might.
Good luck to all competitors. I look forward to observing, critiquing, and judging your rounds.
Both Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum are persuasive speaking events. Your speech must be geared toward the average, non-technical college-graduate-level audience. You do not need to 'dumb it down' for a Reality-TV audience, but if you are talking too fast or using undefined jargon, even a common LD terms like Utilitarianism or Categorical Imperative, you are hurting your chances. And refer to arguments by their substance, not name dropping - not 'My Plato Card' but 'the philosopher-king argument.' And you must be polite to your opponent, no matter how obnoxious they are.
In LD, your value and criterion count - this is how all of your arguments will be judged, as well as any impacts. If you prove horrible war crimes will be committed under your opponent's case, but have conceded the value of real politick and your opponent effectively argues those war crimes will improve the political standing of the perpetrator, then no matter how morally reprehensible the crimes committed, there is no impact under that value. Conceding the value is fine, if you think you can win under theirs, but understand the full ramifications of doing so are not merely saving time for your clever sub-points, but conceding how they will be judged.
Finally, never tell the judge she MUST vote for you - the judge must vote for whom they think won - declaring yourself the winner is generally bad form, no matter how badly you have trounced your opponent. Forcefully argue in your voters why you think you won, but no mic drop.
"And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversie must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature."
- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Pt. 1, Ch. 5, para. 3
I did LD debate for four years in high school, so I understand the event's jargon and how arguments interact with each other in terms of the framework and contention level. This means that I also flow the debate and will make note if a debater extends a conceded argument (so don't expect to win me over with a flowery 2AR if your 1AR was a dropfest). I am definitely tabula rasa, so I'll accept any arguments made in the round as long as they are either uncontested or better upheld in terms of clash, even if I personally disagree or know a given statistic is misleading. However, I will not accept any arguments that are blatantly offensive or abusive (ex: racism and ridiculous "observations" that make it impossible for your opponent to win the round). I cast my ballot by picking the superior framework and weighing who has the most offense under that framework in terms of cards and contentions.
I'm alright with a faster than normal pace, but please don't go full blast. If you feel the need to send me your speech doc via e-mail, then you're definitely going past the line.
Counterplans/kritiks/other policy stuff
I'm alright with you running these in the right context (i.e. it's pretty unfair to run a policy-esque plantext at a traditional tournament in which your opponent almost certainly has no familiarity with such arguments). However, I'm probably less likely to vote on these arguments compared to a traditional 1AC or 1NC, so run them at your own discretion. I'm most open to counterplans, as those are pretty intuitive and they already get run all the time in oblique fashion anyway.
Although I list myself as "Traditional," I am open to different arguments as long as they are explained well and related to the resolution. I believe that we are debating the resolution, not fixing society's ills. Yes debate will enable us to fix society's ills but a competition round is not where that will occur. Debate theory can be interesting to judge, but again, needs to still be connected to the resolution. Also, be sure that the theory you're arguing is correct and logical. In terms of speed, to me it's not speed it's clarity. If you are going 97 miles per hour and have to constantly repeat yourself because you trip over words, maybe going 60 is better.
My debate paradigm is... that you as debaters set the direction for the debate, within both the rules and generally accepted norms of your event.
Show me why YOUR approach to debate is the right one.
In addition, remember to:
- Always be respectful of your opponent(s) and audience.
- If you choose to spread, remember that your arguments are only as good as what your audience is able to hear.
Mr. Nick Malinak
Head Forensics Coach - The Hill School
NSDA Diamond Coach
Debated for La Salle for 4 years, currently at Elon University
3 years of being a 2A/1N in policy, one year of being a one off K debater in LD, also was double 2's for half the immigration topic
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Tl;dr - I will vote on anything, so you do whatever you do best
Good explanation is important
Fast is good when clear
Analytics are good (most of the time)
Theory is good kinda
Politics DA is meh
High theory is meh
2NR ranks are T/K/DA+CP in that order
K Affs can be good
FW is good
Debate is always educational and almost always good.
Everyone wants to say they're tab but they're not, so I'm just gonna give y'all the way I think about arguments. I don't think that necessitates a change in strategy, but more in extension of arguments. You do you.
Theory is fine as long as it's not fringe. Tell an abuse story and why that made it impossible for you to win/participate in the round. Coherent stories and examples of ground loss, etc. are good.
LD People: Disclosure is good, you should do it. But if you're reading disclosure and the violation is "I messaged them on facebook X mins before the round and they didn't respond" I will give you a 25 regardless of whether you go for it or win. This is a terrible model for debate and whoever thought it was a good idea had no sense of personal space. Email or just, maybe, show up to the rooms 30 minutes before so you can disclose in person. Wild, I know.
Mostly the usual here, good links are better, impact calc is a must, please explain the turns instead of just putting it at the top of the block overview. Case specific DA's that you clearly did good prep for sound much better than a generic topic DA with a different link.
I think the politics DA is a terrible argument, if we're being honest with each other. That being said, in (almost) every policy round my 1NR was five minutes of politics. I will understand and vote on it, albeit begrudingly. If you have 3 internal links to get to an impact I don't hesitate to vote aff with some analysis on why risk of a link doesn't trigger said impact. 1 internal link is ideal, ya know, like a normal dis-ad.
Pls attack internal links, especially if there's more than 1. I promise they're bad. Unless they aren't, but I have yet to see a politics DA that has a good one.
More of the usual, make sure you explain why the CP solves case and why it doesn't link to the NB, and why the perm can't resolve the NB. Cheating CP's (Consult/Delay) are usually bad but it's the other teams job to call you out, if they don't then I'm not doing it for them. Just explain the mechanism and how it's different from the aff.
T and FW are different. T when done right is my favorite (and in my opinion, the most fun and strategic) 2NR. Extend interp/violation/(whatever you want to call impacts to T) and we'll be good. T is mostly tech so please try and keep it clean.
Some other thoughts:
Explain reasonability right please.
If there's no counter-interp it's literally impossible to win.
Generic shells are fine, just don't blow through blocks that you read against every aff on the topic. Slow down a little and contextualize to the aff.
There will be no RVI's under any circumstances.
Also gonna keep it fully transparent with y'all, FW is probably a true argument. That being said, I spent the entirety of my senior year not affirming the resolution and had no relation to the topic. Make of that what you will.
FW is about lbl and explaining why your model of debate is good. Relation to the topic makes it significantly easier to win as a K aff. Impact turns to either sides education arguments are good. DA's to interpretations are good. If you don't have a competing model of debate I'm incapable of voting for you, even if you win every piece of offense to their interpretation. Link turns are good when explained right, impact turns to education are great when explained right. TVA's are terminal defense to counter-interps and any solvency deficits are just what neg ground is, so please explain why it is literally impossible to bring the thesis of your aff into a topical discussion. Or have a solid relation to the topic and have a reason your method wouldn't be able to function with fiat/the USfg/etc.
When I did policy, I read exclusively Cap and FW against K affs, Neolib and Security against most policy affs. When in LD I exclusively went one off queerpess, you do with that whatever you want to.
K's are good when: they have good links; an alternative with reasonable solvency; a framework that supports their thesis; impact turns to the aff; are well explained (big important). One or more of those things is always ideal.
K's are bad when: they have bad/generic links; are explained badly; have arbitrary alts that get no explanation; don't interact with the aff at all at any level(biggest important).
Please make distinctions between pre/post fiat impacts and the way I should evaluate them, otherwise I do it myself and one of y'all won't like the conclusion I come to, so make it for me please. Please contextualize to the affirmative, otherwise the link story becomes weak. Please know what you're talking about, otherwise I probably won't be voting for you. If the other team knows more than you about said criticism, there's a high chance I won't be voting for you. Just know your stuff please.
Reps K's are fine, alts that are just reject the aff ~work~ but y'all can do better.
High theory is meh, I don't think myself or any of y'all understand it but ya know, not gonna generalize. If you read Baudrillard and it's the same 3-4 cards I've seen my entire debate career I will be sad. Don't copy Mich KM. Or South Eugene. Or whomstever you're copying. Be original, it makes everything better.
PS: I've read baedan, Baudrillard, Warren, Wilderson, Halberstam, Puar, Winnubst, DnG, Giroux, Ahmed, and various security authors. Don't skirt explanation because I've read your author of choice, if it isn't in the round I'm not going to evaluate it.
Aff teams: if the aff is soft left the permutation is usually a good bet, contest links because they're probably bad, have defense of the rhetoric of the aff, give me a reason to prefer being a policymaker, etc. Most K's can be dismantled pretty easily if you just use your brain a little instead of reading more cards. Call out blippy DA's to things like the perm or FW.
Hey I've read one of these! For a whole year! And it had no relation to the topic!
Regardless, I am totally fine with these. You need good answers to FW, reasons why their education is bad and yours is not, reasons why the TVA literally can't exist under their interp, etc. Know your lit. Explain what the aff does and why I should sign my ballot aff. Affs that want the ballot for the reading of the 1AC aren't persuasive. Have a method I can vote for, or why the epist is good, or whatever. Give me something. Please.
Performance: I never was ~too~ involved with these so take that into account. Explain why the performance matters/what it gets you/why and how I should evaluate it. As a sage once said: "Reading an eDgY speech doc is not a performance." I wholly agree with that, garnering offense off of the reading of the 1AC/K is fine but don't say it's a performance unless it is. Embodying the method in round would be considered a performance if done right.
KvK - I did none of these until my senior year. I've grasped it but still probably don't understand a lot of the nuances that go into it, especially if I'm not familiar with the lit, so please explain why things matter. If it's a methods debate I think it's very easy to win mutual exclusitivity on the perm, but that might just be me.
Intersectionality can be a good argument if you have the warrants for it, randomly claiming it probably isn't gonna fly and is super susceptible to links.
Why is disclosing speaks a thing? Don't ask, I'll just make them lower than I was originally going to.
Cross can be good when utilized right. Don't be an ass, you can be sarcastic or whatever I honestly don't care. Bring the concessions up in a speech or it doesn't mean anything. If you make me chuckle it's probably good.
You can use whatever pronouns you want for me. If I slip up and say "guys" it's a Philly thing that is gender neutral. Misgendering people is just like, rude? It's not that hard to just say they/y'all. If anyone has an issue with that then they can bring it up, otherwise you just seem ignorant/mean/oblivious to me, which are all bad looks.
Sorry if I missed anything, feel free to email me with questions, it's at the top
Debated LD from 2010-2013. Pretty much tab: Ks, speed, whatever else is fine. My only real ask for debaters is that you sign post everything in your speeches; please let me know where you are on the flow at all times. Overall though, I think debate should be fun and informative, so enjoy yourselves!
If you have any more specific questions before the round, please ask.
Greetings... Keeping this brief, I have moderate experience judging; perhaps two or three years under my belt. I appreciate when speakers emphasize clarity over speed. I've heard debate speakers rip along at full throttle, and trying to understand them is like drinking from a fire hose. Limiting speech to a brisk, yet pace is appreciated.
I will listen to and evaluate basically anything that's not blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, so long as it contains three things: a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If it’s missing one of these, it's not an argument, and I'm unlikely to vote for it. More than anything, I believe that the end-goal of debate as an activity is education, meaning that I will reward in-depth analysis, specific research, and clever tactics. It also means that I will react negatively to shallow warrants, generic evidence, and cheap, "gotcha" strategies. Furthermore, I will NOT tolerate rude or abusive behavior toward teammates, opponents, spectators, or myself, and will begin docking speaks the moment it happens.
Topicality/Framework-I have a relatively high threshold for T/FW, and have tended to default to reasonability in the past. Winning T arguments need to be specific to the affirmative, reference specific ground lost, and do substantive impact work in terms of my ballot. Proving topical version of the aff is also likely to earn my ballot.
Counterplans/Disads-Under-highlighted evidence with one or two word tags (e.g. "Nuclear war" or "Extinction") will be given relatively little weight at the end of the round.
K's/K Aff's-K's were my favorite arguments as a competitor, but will likely lose my ballot if executed poorly. Depth is much more important than breadth in these debates, and even generic links should be contextualized in terms of the aff.
Theory-Most of the time it can be resolved by rejecting the argument, not the team. If you feel that it’s important enough to stake the round on, please put it on a separate flow.
Conditionality-If you do not think there's a chance you'll go for an argument in the 2NR, DO NOT READ THAT ARGUMENT. Sandbagging teams with 8+ small, underdeveloped, and/or contradictory arguments is uneducational, uninteresting, and incredibly frustrating to judge. In these instances I am highly likely to vote for 5 minutes of condo in the 2AR.
I have been coaching and judging for 3 years. I am used to traditional debate in a small circuit. I am able to follow spread within reason, but am more concerned with the effort of your argument. I am not impressed by gimmicks or minutiae. I want to see a strong value in LD and good, logical, well-supported contentions in both LD and PF. I expect debaters to rebut contentions of their competitors and prove to me that they should win because their contentions hold.
Any cases built on any xenophobia will be disregarded and brought up in tab. I expect you to be respectful and understanding, especially during online debates.
I am a new parent judge. I am not too accustomed to many aspects of debate, so it would be best to try to explain debate related concepts or anything else. Other wise have fun, don’t say anything universally wrong (racist, etc.)
I debated in high school. Then, I coached policy debate for La Salle from 2010-2015. I no longer coach, but I still judge sporadically.
Run what you want, but
I will not vote for death good
And I don't yell clear
Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before the round if my haiku was not enough of an explanation.
You found me!
I am a traditional-style parent judge with one year of experience judging Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum,
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 debated for four years at William Tennent High School. I competed mostly in LD and Policy so I understand those events and their respective jargon the best. I am currently an assistant debate coach at Pennsbury High School. Additionally, I am a Philosophy student at Pitt. While the details of my personal life may bore you, I only mention them to assure you that I am not completely clueless.
To save your time and mine, I have attempted to reduce my judging philosophy to a handful of bullet-points:
>I keep a detailed flow and value line-by-line debate. I will probably notice if you drop something.
>I am fine with speed. Just be sure to say taglines/author names clearly.
>I default to utilitarian calculus in the absence of an alternative framework.
>I love good framework debates.
>I am simply here to evaluate the arguments made, so run whatever you want to run.
Feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. I will answer them to the best of my ability.
LD Judging Paradigm for Brad Taylor (Barrack Hebrew Academy, Bryn Mawr, PA)
I'll call myself an open-minded traditionalist. At the lowest level I’ll fall back on the value framework and who is better upholding their side of the resolution. Beyond that I’ll listen to just about anything. I prefer fewer well developed and supported arguments over many less substantial ones. Keep your link story tight. The more links you have to build a thesis or argument, the weaker it becomes. It is expected you understand and present claim/warrant/impact. Warrants are critical – please have them and make sure they are good ones.
I prefer cases and arguments focused on the resolution. This is the fair battleground for everyone. If you want to present technical stuff, a string of contingencies, or other less-than-direct approaches, I’ll listen. But last I checked, the rules say you’re here to uphold your side of the resolution. I’ll be easy to sway back to that point.
Please make your arguments clear. You’re supposed to do the heavy lifting here – I should not have to decode what you’re saying. I’ll ignore name dropping, philosopher drive-bys, and argumentation short hand. If someone reading your speech had to read a sentence twice to understand it, then it won’t be convincing when I hear it.
Rebuttals are key for me. Don’t just shuffle around and regurgitate what’s been said in the constructives – provide analysis, re-argumentation, and clarity. And remember, we're not weighing whose evidence is better, rather whose arguments are better. I keep a reasonably-detailed flow.
I’m OK with speed if you’re OK with clarity (I start missing things somewhere north of 200 words a minute – do the math). If you’re spreading, your opponent is compelled to clash, but I'll allow a spread to be countered by relatively few words. Remember, we’re not counting arguments to determine the winner. The side with the best stuff will prevail over the side with the most stuff. If you can do both, great.
I take a dim view of attempts to carve out a narrow requirement for yourself, or narrow ground for your opponent. You are here to debate, not hide from one. If you want to roll out theory to address fairness or abuse, fine. But the formalism is not mandatory and your opponent can respond conventionally. Make sure the abuse is legitimate, and if it is I’ll vote on it. But I have a low threshold for theory as part of an NC spread strategy and if so can be swayed to the RVI.
Please follow the flow and signpost! Gross repetition is not needed, but please tell me where you are. Your words will be more effectively assimilated into the debate if I don't have to search all over the flow.
I'm a non-interventionist. I'll fill in the overtly obvious, but you have to connect the dots. If you want it to count, say it!
I debated in policy debate for 4 years at La Salle from 2006-2010, and then coached the La Salle policy debate team from 2010-2014. I no longer coach, but I still judge occasionally. I currently work as an attorney at a public defender's office.
I had a much more detailed paradigm up here, but it appears to have somehow been lost or deleted since the last time I judged. Since I no longer judge as frequently as I once did you shouldn't assume that I'm familiar with arguments just because they've been common on this year's topic.
Be nice to your opponents, don't steal prep or clip cards, warrant/impact your arguments, make sure there's actual clash, and please don't make morally reprehensible arguments. Other than that, I'm more or less ok with however you want to proceed in a round. For more detailed feelings about specific arguments, feel free to ask me before the round.
I would like to be on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I have a degree in political science from West Virginia University. While at WVU I competed on their policy team though I have experience in parliamentary and IPDA debate as well. I was a 2N for WVU and I am most familiar with the Cap K.
What you actually care about:
- Pls don’t read racism/patriarchy good or adjacent arguments, just don’t.
- I will listen to any* arguments(barring the ones above). You need to tell me why I should vote for that argument. I like having a solid framework established that sets up the role of the ballot and the role of the judge. If competing frameworks – tell me why your way of viewing the round is better.
-Do not use other people's experiences to get a ballot.
- Speed is fine
- I don’t flow CX, if you want something from CX to be on the flow, bring it up during your speech.
- Debate is an educational activity – have fun! Learn something!
- I appreciate humor in a round- rounds are long, and engaging debates are so much better to participate in and watch.
- Find a way to reference musicals and you will gain .2 speaks.
Hi. I am happy to be your judge for the round. I am a lay judge and I am only familiar with traditional LD. Tell me why your value criterion is more important than your opponents and give me clear extensions along with weighing your arguments. I don’t disclose after the round.
Things I dislike.
- Being rude and aggressive in cx
- Policy arguments in LD
- Petty arguments like spending an absurd amount of time on the value debate, definitions, etc.
Things I like.
- Being respectful to your opponent and your judges
- Talking in a persuasive manner
- Please signpost if you want good speaks
- Also for high speaks please give me clear voting issues on why you should win the round at the end of your last speech.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts. At the end of the day, I will vote for the debater that can present me with the most persuasive and compelling arguments. Looking forward to a great round. Good luck debaters!