I am an LD coach in the CFL, but I have experience judging all debate events.

Value & Criterion - remember this is LD, not PF. Ultimately I am looking for you to tie all points in your case back to your value structure. Your value structure sets a standard for me to weigh the round. Be sure that your case upholds the standard established in your value structure.

Clarity, Logic, & IMPACT - Keep your arguments concise and to the point. Snowball effects and illogical conclusions will cause me to discount your arguments. I want to see impact!! Why is what you are arguing important? Why should I care? Evidence should be clear and concise, cited and applied correctly to your case.

Structure & Narrative: I like to see a clear narrative throughout your case. Why and how does your offense outweigh your opponents? I like you to give me clear voters that link back into the narrative of your offense.

QUALITY > Quantity - Speed does not win a round with me. Logical, original, well-thought out arguments will win your round. I will flow as you debate, and if I cannot understand you I can not flow your arguments. I can handle some speed, but if you spew out as many arguments as you can or barrel through reading your case, I will likely just drop my pen. A good debater can give clear, logical arguments in the time frame allotted without needing to speed read. Again, QUALITY is better than quantity.

Maturity & Civility - I will take points for arrogance, rudeness, or immaturity. There is never cause to be nasty or unkind to your opponent. If you cannot argue your side diplomatically and respectfully, your lack of professionalism will be reflected in speaker points.

A few notes on flowing....

If you call for a card in round, and then fail to bring it back up, I assume you conceded the point to your opponent. Depending on the specifics of the round I may dock points for this.

I do not flow the author's name of a card. If you continue to reference arguments by using the author's name as a tag, I won't know to which argument you are referring, and I won't be flowing it.

I do not flow CX but I am listening closely and I appreciate when you extend arguments or points from CX into rebuttal

I will use my flow in my decision making, but it will not be the only point of reference for my decision. There is something to be said for your style of communication and delivery as well as the arguments you make.

Don't spread.

Keep rehash to a minimum.

Hello!

I competed for four years in Congressional Debate for Asheville High School. I qualified for CFLS, reached the semifinal round in the Senate at NSDA Nationals in 2020, and have had a solid local career. I currently compete in British Parliamentary Debate for the University of Edinburgh Debates Union. Additionally, I was the co-captain of my team and have recently worked with novices, therefore, I know what a quality speech looks like.

Here is what I value most when judging a round:

I was a presiding officer throughout all four years of competing, and I recognize and appreciate its value. Therefore, I highly consider presiding officers when looking at rankings. If you preside well, I will likely rank you in my top 8.

I appreciate funny intros, but make sure they’re topical. It's important to not use "canned" intros, or intros that you can pull out at any time that apply to any topic. An example would be the quote "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." We’ve all heard it before, please don’t make me hear it again.

Keep in mind that Congressional Debate is just that - debate. While I do appreciate and consider fancy rhetoric and fluent speaking, I will rank someone who makes clear and valid points over someone whose speech sounds pretty, and I will rank someone who does both of those things along with solid refutation above anyone else. I will also value quality of speeches over quantity. If you are passed over on a bill in some way, you will still be considered with everyone who gave a speech on that bill. Please make sure to be interactive with the chamber, though. I will be looking at engagement with the chamber in my rankings. With that in mind, please do not be afraid of moving to previous question if the debate has become rehashy. I can promise that I will like your speech more if it's an early round, unique speech on the next bill than if it's the fourth affirmation speech in a row. Again, Congress is debate, and when the debate has ended, previous question should be called.

Speaking of, there is a difference between refuting speakers and simply name-dropping them. Refutation is legitimately engaging with the material in someone else's speech. For example, saying “Rep. X said this, but my two pieces of evidence prove why they’re wrong,” is refutation. Meanwhile, saying "Rep. X’s point was non-unique so their point falls,” is not refutation. Furthermore, nothing makes it more obvious that you haven’t been listening to the round than saying “representatives on the negation have brought up [blank].” It’s always more impactful to bring up a specific competitor, but make sure you’re bringing them up for a reason and not just because they were on the opposite side and you need to refute someone.

Nothing is more important to me than equity. Inequitable structures and behavior are a huge problem in the debate community, and as a judge, I will take action to ensure that all chambers that I judge are as fair as possible. With that in mind, if you make an outwardly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist comment, I will drop you. I don’t care how well you were doing otherwise, there is no excuse for that behavior. In that same vein, I know that we all love a good, aggressive questioning session, but do make sure that you aren’t speaking over another person. That isn’t fun for the judges to listen to, and it’s not fun for competitors to interact with.

Additionally, when addressing other competitors, make sure to address them as “Representative” or “Senator.” Too many times in this event, I’ve seen men be acknowledged by one of those titles, while women are addressed as “Miss.” I won’t dock points if you forget whether you’re in the Senate or the House, but please address everyone by either “Representative” or “Senator” to ensure equality in the chamber.

Please let me know if you have questions. After a round, feel free to get in contact with me for any additional advice you may want or questions you may have. Good luck!

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

I'm a former speech competitor that has been judging speech, PF, LD, and CX rounds for 5 years. I am currently a public speaking teacher at the collegiate level as well. The things that I look for are consistent throughout both speech and debate events, recent and unbiased information, clear definitions, and NO SPREADING! The point of debate is to cleanly debate topics as educated individuals and to not devolve into a rude, talking over type of argument. There is a difference between debating and arguing.

The long and short of it all: I want a good, clean and fair fight!

PFD is my stock and trade. I competed from 2006-2009 at all levels. My partner and I were among the top 18 teams at the 2009 NFL National Tournament in Birmingham, Alabama. Public Forum debate is the "common man's" debate. This means that there should be clear voters and impacts. Evidence battles are policy debate and have NO place in PFD. Debaters should aim for persuasion over coercion by force and for logic over a litany of sped red sources. Strong warrants; however, are equally critical for without them any argument is left without a leg to stand on. As far as rules are concerned I am not a referee, but I am familiar with the rule book. If you see a counterplan, tell me! If your opponents brought up new evidence or new arguments when they shouldn't, tell me! I WILL NOT connect dots for you; this makes it your obligation to draw attention to any/all mistakes that your opponents make in their handling of the round.

When it comes to LD..... I want to see that you stay on topic. Tangential arguments are great but in moderation if and/when they have a strong link to the resolution. I want CLEAR voters and you MUST link them back to whatever value structure you want me to use for weighing that round. I also respect good clash. Substance is valued over style or delivery but if you make yourself hard to follow then it is not my obligation to connect dots for you. I judge off the flow but WEIGHING is VERY IMPRORTANT!

When it comes to Congress..... Speeches should be clear, and impactful with specific credible evidence. Do not expect that I care about what you are saying. Make me care! This goes for your tone and impact statements as well. Participation in questioning is an absolute must, but quality matters more than quantity. If you can show clash that is an added bonus. It is, after all, Congressional DEBATE, not congressional oratory or extemp. Clash helps to clarify your position in comparison to other speakers and provides for a much more watchable/enjoyable experience overall.

Hello! I'm so glad to be judging you today! My name is Val and I live in DC working for a non profit, and I'm going to UNC Chapel Hill, enough about me tho! Let's get to the paradigm.

Structure of the cases and following along:

HAVE TAG LINES! Please do sign posting so I can keep up with your case, it will also end the round sooner. I have ADHD so I very much can get lost once I get bored-- so it's very important to work on your presentation and make sure everyone in the room is following along. If you're going to have a road map, then please follow it! I'm okay with you all going a tiny bit overtime in the case that you are structured, if it's simply endless ramblings then I will cut you off at time. If you don't give me voter points then it'll be harder to weigh in your favor.

PUBLIC FORUM

PF is a stat heavy debate and I will hold you to that. I am taking note of your most used and most important cards, and expect you to explain them well. If your opponents call for them, I expect you to pull them up quickly. But don't make this a just a numbers debate: what do the numbers mean? Why are they important? Make sure that the Summary Speech and the Final Focus both talk about the things in the round you want me to carry; what mattered the most and why should you win. Extra points if you use metaphors to break things down.

Claim-Warrant-Impact speeches are best, but if you follow another structure that works for you and you're doing sign posting, that's fine! If you do CWI, make sure that everything is coherent. If you're going to have a crazy claim like "Nuclear War" or "extinction" make sure you're ready to defend it.

Warrants: I will weigh on the side of more recent sources for PF. This is not a reason or pathos (or even logos sometimes) argument, it's about what materializes. You can give me a beautiful delivered speech about what the US "plans" on doing, but unless you prove to me that they will actually do it (and your opponent doesn't attack your credibility) I will not carry it across as a voter point. Make sure that your cards make sense and aren't cherry picked evidence, I will be able to tell and I will card. Extra points if you get your stats from something that isn't a newspaper!

Impact: I tend to weigh on lives but am willing to hear arguments (that are more important? idk). If you give me no impacts and no materialization of your warrants and everything is subjective or to chance, it'll be hard for me to vote in your favor.

Cross: do NOT speak over each other to interrupt one another. No eye rolls, no sass. Please be respectful. Yelling is not a way to get your point across. However, don't be passive. I want all partners to engage during cross. If one person is dominating cross and you do not know your points, then I will remember that when weighing voter points. Know your case, make sure that you and your partner are on the same page.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Value and value criterion have to align. If you do not prove to me how they are connected then there is no way to evaluate your case. If you don't defend your value or vc then I will go based on your opponents structure.

LD is a philosophy and ethical debate. I want to hear quotes of theory, political thinkers and philosophers. THIS DOESN'T MEAN TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND! Explain how your case stands according to human behavior or natural law. Psychologists are also valid to list!

Similar to PF however, you need to show me stats and long term effects of your side. If you do not have any stats then I cannot vote for your side. If you come up with a pretty logical argument to explain a point without a stat during cross-x, then I might overlook the need for evidence. LD has more wiggle room for subjectivity and counterplans are allowed, but you still have to prove to me how things are going to happen. (Don't necessarily dumb it down, but make sure that if there is a plan, it has to be presented.)

In the end, I will be voting for the side that presents me with an argument that is more long term or the side that requires urgency. You need to impact your case-- tell me why what your talking about will actually happen, and what it'll do to our society, and why it's better than your opponents.

In the end, have fun! I loved debate when I did it in high school and I think a lot of these topics are very important to think about. I will only disclose in round if you ask me at the beginning of the round or if the tournament rules ask for it.

Hello, debaters! I'm Linda Webb coach of Manchester High School, and I've been coaching for five years now, delving into Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congress Debate. While I may not have a formal debate background, my focus is on overall presentation, weighing both arguments and delivery. I appreciate a respectful tone between opponents and prefer a clear, measured pace over spreading.

**Debate:**

**Weighing Arguments:**
I approach debates with a keen interest in both the substance of your arguments and the way you present them. I value well-structured, impactful cases that are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Remember, quality over quantity is key.

**Delivery:**
Effective communication is crucial. Articulate your points clearly, and ensure that your delivery enhances the persuasiveness of your arguments. I appreciate debaters who prioritize clarity over speed.

**Respectful Tone:**
Maintaining a respectful tone is essential. I expect debaters to engage in a civil manner, recognizing the importance of respectful discourse. Rudeness or disrespect will not be looked upon favorably in my evaluations.

**Congress:**

**Parliamentary Proceedings:**
As a Parliamentarian, I defer to the Presiding Officer to run the room efficiently. I actively observe participation, noting who is asking questions, making motions, and contributing positively. Participation and compliance with the Presiding Officer's requests are crucial for a successful session.

**Respect:**
Respect is paramount in the chamber. I expect all participants to engage in a respectful manner, and any lack of respect will be duly noted on your ballot. This applies to interactions with fellow participants, as well as adherence to parliamentary procedures.

**Speech Evaluation:**
In Congress, I look for impactful speeches that clearly convey the reasons why a particular bill or resolution should be passed and become part of American history. Make sure your speeches are well-organized, persuasive, and contribute meaningfully to the overall discussion.

**Conclusion:**
Ultimately, I'm here to appreciate and evaluate the efforts you put into presenting your arguments and participating in the debate or Congress session. Remember to communicate effectively, respect your opponents, and make a compelling case. Best of luck to all of you, and let's have a great round!

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