DEBATE EVENTS:

I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win debate rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.

This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.

The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. as far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.

I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Look me in the eye;

(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!

SPEECH EVENTS:

Many Debaters [and coaches] consider speech events to be "throw-away" events---something to do when debaters are not in a "real" debate round. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Speech events teach students about the power of pathos---of making human connections. They provide a wonderful balance to the logos-heavy debate events. To capture my vote [or the vote of most ordinary human beings], a student must be prepared to do the following:

(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;

(2) Make consistent eye contact (for interp. events hold a steady, consistent locus);

(3) Give a clear, real-life illustration of how your topic effects real people;

(4) Make me laugh;

(5) Make me cry;

(6) Make me care;

(7) Help me understand what you mean;

(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;

(9) Help me understand why any competing viewpoints are wrong; and,

(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.

Don't treat Speech like it is another debate event; it is an altogether different animal that requires a somewhat different, more empathic skill set. Don't be intimidated by this [if you happen to be a hard-core, card-flipping, evidence-stacking debater]. Instead, embrace the opportunity to learn a new [and equally real] way of communicating.

For LD:

I'm a value based judge. I expect to see you discuss the value and to tie back your contentions to your value. Although you do not have to win the value to win the debate you can adopt the other debater’s value and argue your side achieves their value better. I will be flowing the entire round. I will expect you to tell me why to vote you and when to vote in your favor. I expect you to argue for your contentions as well as rebutting the other debater’s argument. I did foreign extemp and LD in high school so I understand the rules and you can feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. I expect you to use evidence cards as well as logical arguments. I try to be as objective as possible and base it on what you guys say not my own opinions. I can keep up with fast speech fairly well as long as we don’t get so fast we start speaking like policy debaters. Overall be thoughtful, clear, and well spoken and give good arguments grounded in your value.

For Foreign and National Extemp:

I’m a foreign extemper in my heart still. I expect for extempers to use evidence by quoting sources by stating the the newspaper tile as well as the date. I expect the sources to be in a least a year preferably 6 months of the day your speaking. I will be counting them and they will affect overall ranking. I will look for clear organization and for you to fill between 6 and 7 mins but you do have a grace period. I expect an AGD or hook and a conclusion as well as your points. I will look for a thoughtful clear organization of your speech. I want you to speak with confidence and with emotion. Be funny or be powerful, let yourself and your opinions come through your speech.

For all the other IE’s:

I’m looking for a logical and thoughtful organization. I’m looking for a speaker with good eye contact and a voice with emotion and enunciation. A speaker whose emotional when they need to be, and logical and argumentative when they need to be. I’m very familiar with theater and speech so I look for the arguments as well as the performance for the overall rankings.

As a judge I come into the room the least educated person in the room- waiting to be informed and swayed. In LD debate, fiat in an important principle for me- I want to hear the argument for WHY something should be done- not if it CAN be done nor do I care about a plan or counter-plan. Evidence and definitions are also key and something I listen for in making my decision.

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

She/her

SLC West (2014-2020)

Hamilton College '24 - member of parliamentary debate team

2 years of policy, 2 years of LD, & 2 years of PF experience

Add me to the email chain -- jgalian@hamilton.edu

Policy:

I am open to all arguments/argumentative styles. Although I have certain predispositions, none are set in stone and all can be overcome through proficient technical debating.

Tech > truth

I am best for CP & DA vs. case debates, less good for T & K debates.

The ballot goes to the team that does the better debating.

Organized line by line and clarity is key. 2AC frontlines should be organized and numbered.

Send speeches in a document rather than the body of the email; send a marked copy after the speech if you cut cards.

I am not familiar with the water topic. Make sure to explain technical terms and tell me what your abbreviations stand for.

I am 50-50 on condo. Don't spread through blocks & clearly explain in round abuse.

T USFG: Fairness is an impact if explained correctly; it can also be an internal link. I tend to prefer skills impacts. The most persuasive aff offense vs. T are case-specific impact turns.

LD:

I think about LD similarly to how I think about policy. Everything in my policy paradigm applies here as well.

Be clear in explaining your value/criterion and in weighing it. I tend to prefer utilitarianism, but I will vote on anything as long as it is clearly explained and substantiated.

Final rebuttals need to be impacted out; clarity and clash in impact explanation is key.

PF:

Evidence is very important. Extend cards in rebuttals and reference data, statistics, expert consensus, etc to support your arguments.

Smart analytics are under-utilized, but not a substitution for good evidence.

Be courteous in cross fire. Assertiveness is fine, but respecting your partner and opponents is key.

All arguments need warrants and impacts; otherwise I will not evaluate them.

Clash and warranting is key.

You can speak as fast as you like. I am accustomed to flowing policy/LD-style spreading.

Please by timely in sharing evidence when the other team requests it. I will run prep if looking for cards takes excessively long.

Line by line and impact calc are extremely important!!

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

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.

Hello!

If you're a novice please read this first: Welcome to the amazing world of debate! Seriously debate is freaking amazing, and was definitely the highlight of my time in high school. I learned how to do research, how to express opinions, and most importantly, how to see both sides of an issue (and yes nearly every issue has two legitimate sides). Honestly my biggest piece of advice coming into round is just to stay calm. Debate can be a very scary world to jump into. You'll hear weird debate jargon that no one in their right mind normally uses (Kritik, T-shell, DA- I'm going to be using some of those words below). You'll hear kids speak at ∞+1 words per minute and it will sound like a literal machine gun. And you'll see megafiles with 200 pages of arguments and wonder how anyone can have the time to make those when it took you 2 weeks just to come up with 10 pages of arguments. It can be very very easy to get overwhelmed. So my best piece of advice is just to stay calm. Have fun, enjoy the moment, enjoy the work you've put in to building a case. Understand that no one expects you to be a flawless debater, especially in your first year. I don't expect it, your coaches don't expect it, and you shouldn't expect it either. Just have fun and be willing to learn, and you'll see just how amazing debate can be.

Personal Bio:

Some quick things about me. I graduated from Woods Cross in 2020. I did debate for three years, and spent 99% of that time doing LD. I'm in college now, studying Economics. I was a fairly serious debater while in high school, and I think my judging style reflects that. Speaking of...

Judging Style (LD):

Okay now for the good stuff. One quick note: I firmly believe that you can never "win" a debate, rather all you can do is "win" over a judge. I think this applies to real life too. With that note out of the way, let's get down to business.

*For PF Debate*

I judge PF in much the same way I judge LD, with one main exception. I care far less about the value/criterion debate in PF than I do in LD, and will weight more heavily evidence and statistics rather than just moral arguments. Feel free though to ask me any questions before the round starts (this applies regardless of what event you're doing).

*For traditional debate*

Value/Criterion: This is the first thing I look at at the end of a debate. Essentially, your value/criterion is going to tell me how I should view the round. You do not need a value/criterion to win me over as a judge, just make sure to explain to me why your way of thinking should be preferred to your opponent's way of thinking. The winner of the round will be the debater that most fulfills the winning value. For example, if the winning value is "Nationalism", then the winning side is going to be the one that leads to the most nationalism. Likewise, if the winning value is "Quality of Life", then the winning debater is going to be the one that proves that their side leads to a higher quality of life for all. As such, you do not need to win the value debate to win the round. You just need to show that your side fulfills your opponent's value more than their side does. If neither side defends their value/criterion, or presents one to be defended, then my default value is Quality of Life with a Criterion of Utilitarianism (i.e. whichever side improves the quality of life for the most amount of people wins the debate).

Arguments: Organization is critical. Make sure to show me how your contentions support your framework (or your opponent's framework if that's your style), how your subpoints support your contentions, and how your cards support your subpoints. Well organized arguments are much more effective, easier to flow, and are going to be much more compelling to me as a judge. Well organized counterarguments are simply beautiful to watch. With that said, feel free to brake away from the "traditional" framework if it suits your purposes.

Impacts: This kind of goes along with arguments, but I decided to make a special section just for it because I believe it's SUPER important. Make sure to compare your impacts with your opponents, and tell me why they outweigh.

*For progressive debate*

I'll be honest, I'm much more well-versed in traditional debate than with Kritiks (K's). However, I still love hearing K's, and think the underlying theory behind them is fascinating. If you're going to run a K, or any other form of progressive debate, just make sure that you're organized (yes as you can probably tell by now I'm big into organization). I'll update this more if I start seeing more progressive debate.

Final thoughts:

1. I believe that cross-ex is entirely for the person asking questions. That means that if you ask a question, feel free to politely cut off your opponent after about a sentence or two (please don't cut them off after only two words).

2. There is a difference between attacking your opponent's arguments and attacking your opponent. Attack your opponent's arguments mercilessly. Don't attack your opponent.

3. If you have any other questions, or need me to clarify something, please don't hesitate to ask. This is your round, and I want to make sure we're all on the same page.

I watch for a professional presentation, including courtesy toward all competitors, diction, enunciation and speaking just fast enough so the facts presented are understandable. It is better to eliminate thoughts than spew facts.

Winning entry is determined by the actual argument presenting convincing facts and sources.

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

Eye contact, supporting facts, complete sentences.

I've been a debate coach for many years and have a good understanding of how each event should be done.

I believe that a good debate is one that focuses on the intention of the resolution. I'm not a big fan of definition-based debates that try to win based on how one team interprets the resolution over another.

Evidence is also key. All evidence should be properly cited and relevant. It should also be presented in a way that maintains the original positions of the author(s).

Respect is key. Debate is a civil event. There is never a need to shout or use foul language. You should treat your opponent with respect and remember that we can only hold debates if there are individuals willing to do the activity. Speaking poorly about someone, either in round or outside of a round is uncalled for.

In speech events, I respect originality. I'm not too much of a fan of speaking given solely to create shock and discomfort. I believe that serious issues can be discussed without having to focus on how negative everything is.

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

Background: I am an experienced debater that has competed in different events but specifically competed in public forum. I know the rules and expectations for every round. I was my school's debate president, I understand how debate works.

What I value in the round:

Clash - The winner of the round will have EFFECTIVELY attacked EACH of their opponents contentions. During cross examination, there should be clash in questioning. I do NOT flow cross ex so if there is something important that happens, bring it up in your next speech. Clash should be about the actual information in the round, NOT about sources.

Speaker Points: In order for me to rank you as a good speaker, there must be clarity, good volume, and confidence in the information you are speaking about. Be confident but not arrogant.

My pet peeves in the round:

Respect - Respect is very important to me. If your opponent is hogging cross ex, feel free to cut them off but do it respectfully. Be aggressive but not rude. If you use an ad hominem fallacy at your opponents, you will lose the round.

Rule/Source Game - This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I am totally fine if you ask your opponents to see specific evidence in their case but don't make that the focus of the round. Also don't play the rule game, if a rule is broken you can mention it but I can tell if a rule is broken. Counter plans are not allowed in PF and if you use one, you probably aren't going to win.

I have been judging speech and debate for several years though I never actually participated in it. I tend to flow cross but I weigh arguments brought up in speeches more heavily. I don't like speed or spewing, but I will be tolerant of it as long as it is understandable. If I can't understand you then I can't be fair as a judge. I like clear sign posting, fact based, and logical arguments. I tolerate clash and aggression but attack the case not the person you are debating. In speech events I weigh confidence and clarity the most heavily. I'm more likely to vote for you if I believe that you believe what you are saying. Try to avoid stuttering or adding filler words. In my ballots I try add constructive criticisms and tend avoid wasting time telling you that you are good at what you do. Clearly you are and you already know good things and will continue to do them. Good luck!

Add me to the chain at zeeht@duq.edu or use SpeechDrop.

At the outset, I debated three or so years between Policy and Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate in high school, three years on the NFA LD circuit in college (Utah), a little bit of coaching here and there (CCHS and Harker), and am currently a (1L year) law student at Kline.

At a high level,I generally view myself as prioritizing technical concessions over truth, and a well-developed technical debate with in-depth analysis is always encouraged.

As far as arguments and "unconventional cases",arguments are arguments; performance, advocacy, non-traditional, soft left, etc. are all arguments. Questions such as "Does policymaking outweigh individual resistance?" or "Does activism come before ground?" are questions that are usually answered on a round-to-round basis.

I love critical evidence arguments (huge speaker points here), whether it's arguing a team's evidence doesn't say what the team claims it does, a parallel compression between two pieces of evidence, or even a comparison of the persuasiveness of the authority behind the evidence. You gotta go further than, "their evidence is power tagged ... next!" No no, explain the warrant as to why it does so.

On topicality, ever since I entered law school, I've warmed up to T debates. As a prior issue, you must actually prove abuse. For example, when you say negative ground, the negative team must actually be suffering from a lack of readiness, and explicitly explain why that is. Or, if you say fairness, why is it unfair and why should I be willing to vote a team down for being unfair? With that said, I will tend to apply either 1) the most widely accepted reasonable interpretation of the word in question (community reasons) or 2) the most legally and academically sound definition.

Next on the K, I enjoy the K. When judging the K, I generally analyze the round through framework. Each side should have a well-warranted framework argument as to why I should view the round their lens (e.g., policy making over epistemology, ontology over individual resistance, or even government fiat over subject formation). I will filter the rest of the Kritik through the lens of whomever team wins framework. Oh, and I frankly have no opinion on whether alternative fiat's a thing.

Finally, the DA/CP. I tend to avoid voting on a 1% risk of the disadvantage means a negative ballot argument. I find that debaters generally lack the warrant development and explanation as to why their disadvantage matters and I won't do the work for them. If you're going for a disadvantage, timeframe and likelihood matter. Actor, consult, etc. CPs are great, while well-developed analyses on actor CPs with warrants are even greater.

On LD and PF, the inclusivity of LD debate means that speed must be agreed upon between debaters. If you ignore the accessible standard of speed that your opponent has set up for you, I have no problem dropping you off of a ten-second speed theory shell. PF calls for an accessible and public-based style of communication. This means eloquence, persuasion, and easy-to-flow argumentation will be rewarded far more than tech and speed. Of course, this does not mean discounting the role of warrants in your argumentation.