LD paradigm

I am opposed to spreading.  I teach communication, and speaking at a rate that your opponent cannot follow is not communication.  If I set my pen down and stop trying to flow your argument, you should take that as a clue that you need to slow down or lose the round even if you have superior arguments or evidence.

Additionally, be nice.  You can be respectful of your opponent and still be competitive.

Debate:

I personally believe arguments should be made clear and understandable to viewers for the sake of accessibility. I am not a fan of jargon or the use of niche and specialized terms without at least a brief explanation that would be accessible to any viewer. Due to this, I do not perform judge intervention.

I am fairly easy going and while I do prefer professional attitudes, I'm much more concerned with the logistics and clarity of an argument than the fact that it was executed in a highly formal manner. So long as all participants are respectful, I prioritize skillful integration of factual knowledge and reasoning over presentation style.

Speech:

Pieces which are clearly products of much energy and effort are preferred. A high level of investment is appreciated, especially in the expression of physical, mental, and emotional engagement during performance. To me, pieces which show a clear dedication to embodiment and well-developed expression are very important. I will judge primarily based on level of perceived effortful piece development, energy/engagement during performance, as well as development of advanced elements such as physicality, character development, and execution of speech-specific skills.

I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.

Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.

I like an LD 1AR/1NR or PF Rebuttal to be line-by-line, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. I like LD 2AR/2NR to crystallize and give voters-not more line-by-line. Same with PF Summary and Final Focus.

It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.

I am fine with both progressive debate and traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. I can follow you, but I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.

Do not spread LD, this is not Policy. By the same token, do not try to provide solvency.

Keep it respectable, there is such a thing as badgering the opposite end of the case in a disrespectful manner that in itself is unpleasing to not only your opponent but to some judges as well. I have no true preference on speed, but that being said, still make it where you can be thoroughly understood. If I can't understand you, I will not/can not flow you through and can end in a negative vote for your side. Be professional, be courteous, but overall be the best you can be. This year (2021) will be a little weird due to the current pandemic. Take your time, do your best, and if any complications arise please let myself or any other judge/coach know. This may be an uncomfortable way to do debating or speaking events but we are all proud of you for jumping out of the comfort zone and putting your best foot forward. Break legs! - Aedrynn

I was an LD debater from 2012 to 2015, PF 2015 to 2016. Rule number 1 is to be respectful to everyone.

LD: I ran LD as a traditionalist of sorts. That said, I need to see both sides engage the resolution and incorporate framework. Impact, impact, impact: tell me how your arguments matter, and why that leads to you winning the round. Voters are an essential part of a good last speech. Tell me explicitly why I should vote for you; do not leave it up to me.

PF: My role as a PF judge as that of the American juror (so sayeth the NSDA Manual). With that in mind, I see my role as that of someone with little formal debate experience. Make arguments that make sense to a lay judge. This does not mean dumb things down, but it might mean I see some things as intrinsically good. Take your time to spell out your impacts and how they differ from your opponents. Keep your evidence available and ready for your opponents, be kind to one another in crossfire, and remember to stay on point.

CX: I didn't do it as a student, but I've taken a liking to it as a judge. I can handle speed, just make sure to signpost clearly. Impacts will be weighed based on what you tell me in the round. No inherent pref for on-case vs off-case unless you frame one for me. I have a decent grasp on the concepts of T, K, DA and the rest, but maybe not by their names. That doesn't mean don't run it - if it's a good argument it will be weighed as such - but it does mean you might want to take a second to tell me why it matters in more casual terms. Basically, impact. Be respectful of everyones time in the round and we shouldn't have a problem. I'll only disclose if everyone on each team wants me to.

Speaker Points: In all categories these are awarded or deducted based on (in order):

1) Respect for your opponent(s), respect for your judge(s) and respect for your partner(s). This includes things like using appropriate pronouns, using prep time properly and honestly, and generally ensuring the debate space is an inclusive one. The fastest way to lose speaker points from me is to be rude.

2) Quality of diction and presentation, with special consideration to the speeches that follow the case presentation

3) Quality of speech structure (making effective use of your time in your speeches)

4) Verbal prompting, while sometimes helpful, is discouraged by the NSDA manual. I'll subtract speaker points starting with the second instance of prompting.

I reserve the right to deduct or award speaker points for incidental things that may come up in the round, and I'll try to provide feedback on the ballot in these cases.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

I am a parent and my kid is writing this paradigm. If you have a male judge it's the dad and he's more republican but argue well and you'll be fine. Mom/ lady judge is more liberal and she will also vote whatever. Don't remotely spread or talk heavily about debate lingo unless you explain it lol.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

"I may not be smart enough to debate you point-for-point on this, but I have a feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap" - David Letterman

I am the definition of the "citizen judge" in regards to adjudicating PF. I did not do debate while in high school (I focused on DEX as my primary event, but did on occasion do an interpretative event as well). I come to NSDA mainly as an amazingly proud parent who was blessed to watch his daughter shine in PF and DEX for four years. And for those of you that have taken the time to review these paradigms, thank you for your participation in NSDA. You are a rock star and my sincere congratulations for your achievements at any level - whether just starting out to participation in Nationals.

YOU - just as you are - are a rock star. Every one of you is worthy - just exactly the way you are and how you perform. If you take nothing else out of this paradigm, know that you are seen and I admire you for who you are and what you do - exactly as you are right at this moment.

Debate - My judging style for rounds is very simple - make your argument to the best you can. Convince me. Refute your opponents. Present your evidence. Don't drop anything that is truly important in a debate case. I know you know the arguments (and - you know the positions and the arguments better than the judges. We all know. We don't say it - but we know.) Part of what we all need to learn to live in this world is that each side comes at things from a different perspective. We don't need theatrics, drama, all of that - we just need to be able to clearly communicate where we are coming from and convince people. That is the paradigm of how I base my decision.

Extemp - Relax and take a breath. Have a solid introduction, restate the question and then tell us what you know. Cite references. Be clear. Restate the points at the end and have a conclusion that ties it together. The best extemp speeches are ones where I learn something I didn't know about before - whatever you know about the topic is enough, just share it with us.

Interpretative - I'm sorry - I wish I was better at these. Whatever your discipline - be you. If it is HI, show me your joyful side. If it is DI, show me the dramatic version of yourself. I will judge on the requirements of the event as a primary basis of decision - after that, it is how much you put into the performance. The best performances have left me laughing and in tears (both for the right reasons) - that kind of emotion is in each of you. Share it with us during the performance.

Congratulations for being a member of the speech and debate family and I look forward to seeing you soon.

Brian Welborn