2020 — NSDA Campus, PA/US
Varsity Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
[i like k debates very much]. t and theory are annoying to me. speak clearly.
i will deduct points if you're being rude to your opponent
*please have judge instruction* and make the round easy for me
dont spread on tags and speak clearly
if i have to say clear more than 3 times ill deduct points
email - Maxinekyadams364@gmail.com
Experience: I spent 4 years doing Policy Debate at Bronx Science and am currently a sophomore majoring in biology and sociology at Macaulay Honors College.
Email: email@example.com - please put me on the email chain :)
FOR POLICY - Updated for 2021:
Overall: I am a tech over truth judge. Unless something is contested in round, I'll generally take it for truth as I believe judge intervention moots the purpose of debate. The only exception to this rule is if something blatantly offensive is said in round (this includes but is not limited to anything racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist). In this case, I wouldn't give the offending team the win or high speaker points even if the argument goes cold conceded. In general, run what you want and know the best. I was a pretty kritikal debater but I don't have any reservations to voting on a DA, CP, T, or Theory. I generally take the path of least resistance, so I love it when teams do the work of saying why they win. I'm also fine with speed, but make it clear especially in an online format.
*I've been out of doing debate for 1 full year now so do not assume I have any topic knowledge. Don't assume I have background info!
Ks: I love them. That being said, I won't vote on a K if the link debate isn't clear or just poorly run. In terms of the alt, I don't really have a preference. It can be as radical as a violent revolution or as mild as prefiguration. No matter the case, explain your theory of power! I also don't believe that the alt needs to be won in order to vote on a K, although it will help you out. If the alt is abstract or is pragmatic or is even just presumption, I will have no trouble voting for the K if the aff isn't able to prove why that is a problem. Make sure that you explain whatever it is that you're running well!
DAs: I'm cool with them. I don't hate them but I also don't especially love them. I usually find the internal links extremely far fetched and the impacts to be ridiculous. If you're going to run these I'd recommend putting more time into the impact calc debate. However, even if the impact calc debate isn't fleshed out but the aff doesn't do a good job taking out the internal links to the impact, I will buy the risk of the impact.
CPs: I enjoy these if they're done for a reason. If they are competitive with the aff and make sense to read, I'll be partial to these. Make sure you make the net benefit clear and I'll have no problem voting on a CP.
T: I'm fine with T. If an aff isn't topical, I won't automatically vote it down. Make it clear to me why an aff is untopical and why that matters. I am a believer that sometimes there is a good reason for an aff to reject to be topical so as neg, make sure if T is what you're going for, that you're winning the impacts of T. I don't believe fairness is inherently an impact! If you make a fairness claim, make sure that there's some external impact!
Theory: If there is clear abuse and you're able to prove how it has affected the round in a way that was unfair, I'll gladly pull the trigger on theory. I'll vote on theory if it's dropped, but generally, I think I have a high threshold to vote on it.
Affs: Run what you're best at! I'll vibe with K affs though I have no issue with soft left or traditional policy action affs.
In general, have fun and enjoy the debate. Be assertive, but not rude and have a good time. If you've gotten to the end, congrats! Tell me a bear pun (but if you don't know one, a fact about bears is fine too) before the round starts to prove it. I won't automatically vote you up, but by proving you read a judge's paradigm, that's evidence of strategy/caring about the activity and so might just boost speaker points. ðŸ»
All of the above from the Policy section applies wherever applicable.
I like performance and kritikal debate although traditional is fine too.
Assuming I don't know anything about the topic beforehand is a good idea.
I've never debated LD so I don't have a strong opinion about LD specific theory (for ex: RVIs) and I might not know what LD specific arguments/theory is or what the conventional way to evaluate such arguments are - if you explain what it is, I won't have a problem with it though!
I debated LD for Lexington (MA) and graduated in 2015. I now coach LD at Walt Whitman (MD).
Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say clear as many times as necessary but I will get frustrated if you don’t slow down and make an actual effort to be clear. Don’t start your speech at full speed because it can take me a few seconds to get used to your voice and be able to understand you spreading. I don’t read your speech docs while I flow, so be clear on advocacy texts, interpretations, tags, and author names.
I am very comfortable not voting for an argument because I could not understand it in the first speech even if it is crystal clear in your final speech. I am also very comfortable not voting for nonsense arguments, even if they are dropped.
If you are sharing docs, prep time stops when you save the document. Email only one compiled document. Don't compile speech docs or pull up files outside of prep time.
I went mostly for policy-type arguments in high school so I believe they are the debates that I am best at evaluating.
I am not the most well-read judge for a lot of philosophical debates. That said, I think that I can understand most frameworks as long as you present them clearly.
I enjoy good theory debates, but I think most of the theory debates I have ever seen are a form of argument avoidance. A lot of generic shells frustrate and bore me. I like when debaters read cards to support T standards. I think RVIs are logical. I don’t think textuality make any sense as a voter on topicality because as long as both debaters have a definition, they both are textual. From there, topicality is a question of whose interpretation is best for fairness, education, or advocacy skills. I won’t vote off of an offensive counterinterpretation unless you provide an RVI or have standards that justify the offensive plank of the interpretation.
I like kritikal debates and encourage you to read Ks in front of me. I don’t care if your aff is topical or not. I am, however, comfortable voting on T against non-topical affs.
In the absence of any arguments otherwise, this is how I will evaluate debates. This, however, is not an indication of preferences.
-Theory is an issue of reasonability.
-Aff does not get an RVI on theory.
-Theory is a reason to drop the argument.
-Theory is a question of norm setting.
-I will evaluate debates through comparative worlds.
-Neg defends the status quo.
-Counterplans are conditional and judge can kick the counterplan for the neg.
Arguments that I am not a fan of (but I will still vote on):
-Presumption and permissibility triggers
-Affirmative framework choice and affirmative contention choice
-Theoretically justified frameworks
-Theory about case order (ethical frameworks first, role of the ballot first, etc.)
-Most a prioris
Arguments I won’t vote on (even if dropped):
-All neg theory arguments are counterinterps
-Evaluate the round after the 1AR or 2NR
-Resolved a priori
Here are the things you can do to get higher speaks:
-Provide a clear ballot story
-Use all 3 minutes of CX asking questions. I’m okay with using prep time to continue CX, but I prefer that you don’t use CX time to prep.
-2NR and 2AR overviews
-Proper prioritization of flows
-Don't go for too many arguments in rebuttals.
-Don’t read obviously frivolous theory.
I don’t like disclosing your speaks while your opponent is present, but if you find me individually or email me (email given below) I will tell you what your speaks were.
The round stops when an accusation of evidence ethics is made. This includes card clipping and misrepresenting evidence. I will evaluate the accusation to the best of my ability. If I find that a debater has cheated they will be given a loss and zero speaker points. If a debater makes a false accusation, they will lose. I have not yet figured out what to do for speaks in that scenario.
Parent of 5 year public forum debater. Between 30-40 rounds experience at local CFL tournaments in the Washington, D.C. area. Prefers slow, persuasive manner of traditional public forum debate. The emphasis should be on argument development through the round, effective refutation of case positions on both sides of the resolution, with effective crystalized final focus and summary speeches. Excessive card checks are not tolerated as it is expected that all debaters are cutting and reading cards using the highest of ethics in debate rounds. Excessive road mapping before each speech will also not be tolerated. Please help the judge and tournament stay on time. No Spreading!
I debated in high school a lot, I debated some in college. I now help out with debate when I can.
I like debate, and I hope you do too!
I think debates should be fun and I do not like it when people aren't friendly.
I am somewhat new to judging CX (Bronx 2019 was my first time judging circuit policy) but I really enjoy it and am excited to improve! I have lots of experience judging PF and college parli, but I'm well aware policy is a different beast and so I hope you'll bear with me! If I can't understand you I'll yell clear!
Do add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't have strong beliefs that should move you to alter your style in front of me. My favorite thing about CX is the creativity y'all have with arguments and strategies; please do your thing and tell me why it's dope.
I have more experience judging policy-style rounds than K debates. That said, my academic interests are much more in line with the sort of literature I understand appears in many K debates (I'm a philosophy major with specific interests in french post-structuralism, german idealism, and psychoanalysis). That said, my experience with this sort of literature is not in the context of debate.
If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.
LD. I really like judging LD! paradigm is basically same as for CX, fewer specific thoughts because I don't have lots of experience yet.
As I get old and grumpy, I am increasingly frustrated with PF's bells and whistles. We are all regular people. You don't need to 'strongly urge an affirmation' or proudly declare what the 'thesis of your case' is or anything, you just need to debate the round and explain what's going on clearly. There needn't be pomp and circumstance in a room where we're talking about ideas for fun on the weekend.
I will evaluate the arguments as best I can based on what I understand in the round and what lands on my flow. I regret to admit that if something makes no sense to me I will be deeply reluctant to vote on it.
I don't have strong opinions about most practices in PF (defense in first summary, frontlining case in second rebuttal) beyond my personal beliefs about what is strategic. I am more than open to hearing arguments in the debate about why I should care about these things.
I deeply appreciate clever strategies and will reward them with speaker points that reflect how stylish the play was.
If you want to win my ballot, win the round. If you want to win my heart, concede everything your opponent says and still win the round. Weighing is good, but declaring that magnitude is a thing is less good. Compare your arguments to your opponents arguments directly and carefully.
If you have specific questions that I have failed to answer here, feel free to ask them before the round, shoot me a message on Facebook, send me an email, or mail me a postcard.
Former Speech competitor (high school & college), well used debate judge and coach. Formerly, Speech Coach & Co-director at Delbarton and now working at The Haverford School. The 20/21 school year is my 21st? year involved in this activity in some fashion. I've been doing this too long, give me a reason to keep doing it (part joke/part not).
In Interp, I am pro-argument, especially after competing at the college level for a couple years. This can really separate you from the opposition. Sometimes, I can break a ranking tie just by which one I liked better. When that happens, I always say something like "I just liked [the 1] better" or "I connected with [those other two] more". If I constantly harp about an issue and you get a 4 or something like that, you should be able to infer why. Also, see the last sentence of my Extemp & IMP expectations section below.
In PA Events, I give you a list of grievances: Phony/Robotic/Overly Practiced or rehearsed gestures, rushed through points, and not letting your jokes hit. You have to take your time and let your stories and jokes hit.
In Extemp & IMP, tie everything back to your thesis. I am not a fan of personal stories/references in the body of a speech, unless as witty on-tops in extemp or AGDs. I quasi-flow speeches, so don't be surprised if a decent chunk of your ballot is just me writing down what you said or what you said with comments (like "Huh?", "What are you doing?" or "Ooooooh! Nice!").
Number of PF Rounds judged in career: Can safely say in the hundreds
Number of PF Rounds judged 20/21 year: 0
I've been judging PF since it began, so I've heard the infamous NBA dress code topic & remember the cancelled mosque topic. I say this because I am very old school in my approach, leave LD (even though I have experience there and miss judging that...I think) and Policy (NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!) out of the round.
I am a 50/50 judge in terms of content/argument and delivery. I am big on clash, but don't use that to say that you should win the round because your opponents did not counter Con. 5, Sub 8 or junk like that. If the foundation of your argument is, for example, Utilitarianism and the opposition never talks about it in their rebuttals, then you're more likely to get my ballot. I also like to use standard logic. Also, as some folks at Columbia '18 & '19 probably know, I hear your misspeaks very easily. Be careful with word choice. I do like to flow if I have my legal pad with me, it may look more like a Parli flow, but you shouldn't really be looking at my flow anyway.
Cards are starting to get REALLY ANNOYING. Don't just ask for cards. There better be a darn good reason.
I don't mind off-time road maps.
I hate E-ballots. Don't be surprised if I give oral RFDs and leave your ballot blank (especially if I am told that "the internet is spotty").
If you speak later on a bill, I would love it if you referred to others' speeches. I know I am only judging, but you should be trying to convince me to vote on your side of the bill. Seriously treat me as if I am another Congressperson.
I think I judged only 3 rounds in the last decade going into the 2020 Villiger. I will say that I heard what I believe is circuit LD at Columbia 2019 while waiting for the PF semis to end. I was extremely disappointed in the speed and the decision to exchange cases purely because of said speed. So I guess I'm even more traditional here than I am in PF.
I have experience in judging and/or coaching LD, PF, Parli, Congress, and Speech. So plan accordingly.
***Include me in your email chain.*** email@example.com
It would be beset for everyone if you kept your own time.
To be a true PF judge, I shouldn't have one of these...right? But see below...
LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions (i.e. Sept/Oct 2018), value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or progressive/policy-style arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.
Policy - I haven't coached or judged CX since 2016...but just in case...
As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):
Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.
K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.
T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.
CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?
Theory/Framework: Don't love it, but sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.
The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.
Have fun! Be nice! (or at least reasonable)
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.
Hi! I'm Harper. Pronouns she/her.
I mostly did LARP in high school, so those are my favorite debates to listen to, but you can read anything you want. I'm not great at evaluating tricks/performance stuff, but I'll do my best!
I'm a first year out and I haven't done/listened to debate in ages, so please keep that in mind (slowing down for card names, etc.)
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.
Strath Haven High School (PA) - 2014 to 2016
Emory University - 2016 to 2020
Please add me to the email chain!
If you're judged by me, here are the most important things for you to know:
1. I prefer affs that defend a topical plan. If they do not, I find framework arguments about fairness and limits very compelling. If you choose to not defend a plan, you have to play at least some defense on fairness/limits to make any education arguments compelling.
2. Offense/defense strongly shapes how I think about individual debates. I am very unwilling to vote on presumption.
3. Please assemble a document of every card extended in the final rebuttal and send it to me as soon as possible when the debate is done. How I evaluate your explanation is shaped by how much quality evidence you have. I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. Reading 5 cards on something in the 1AR is much more likely to get you back into the debate than explaining why you think its wrong.
4. Tech is important, but so is developing robust positions throughout the debate. If you go for something that the other team has hardly covered or dropped, but you have barely spent any time developing it, I can't guarantee I'll vote on it.
5. Strong neg bias on condo. Generally cool with 2NC counterplans, modifying/kicking planks, etc. I do think that neg teams need to say judge kick in the 2NR for me to consider it. I don't find most other counterplan theory arguments very compelling. You're much better off winning competition arguments than saying that a whole category of counterplan doesn't belong in the debate.
6. Critiques need to engage the case. I generally don't find role of the ballot/FW debating very important for either teams in these debates. I'd much rather see aff specific link debating. I’m probably better for PIKs than most, but I have a decently high threshold for explaining how the alt results in the plan. Please be specific.
7. I'm not very good at evaluating T debates against policy affs. Go for it at your own risk.
8. I love politics DAs.
9. Debate is fun! I understand everyone cares a lot about wins and losses, but I appreciate debaters who remember that they're functionally just playing a game with their friends on the weekend. I'll enjoy judging you if you enjoy being in the debate!
I debated policy for 6 years so debates that look closest to policy debates are what I probably want to see. I want to see debates about substance. Plans and counterplans are great, critiques too. I love the politics DA. Please do impact calc--at least the top 30 seconds of the final rebuttals should be devoted to it.
I care about evidence. I'd rather see you read more cards to build your arguments (throughout every speech except the 2AR) than rely on spin.
I'm meh for theory. From my understanding there is generally a lower threshold for theory args in LD than in policy, so if your are making impassioned appeals to fairness I probably do not feel as cheated as you do.
In K debates--do link debating. I care more about that than framework/role of the ballot args. The strength of the link affects how I view every other arg in the debate.
Values stuff--I generally lean towards util/consequentalism when thinking about debates.
"Traditional" parent judge.
GOOD: You pick a few compelling points; thread them together rhetorically; respond in the moment to challenges; and thereby formulate an argument. Your even pacing and signposting demonstrate organization, clarity, and the understanding that your case and rebuttals must be compelling to the judge; not merely to you or your competitor.
BAD: Disregard for history. Remember, LD is named after two giants of American rhetorical practice, who squared off in a series of values-based debates on the most divisive issue of their time. Those debates occurred in the public square, with the intent of compelling voters to adopt a cause. Lincoln did not use K's. Douglas did not use Progressive Theory Arguments. And neither of them spreaded. (Speed-talkers in this event cannot or will not prioritize. Yes, you're operating within a time constraint. Use that not as an excuse to cram in more stuff and talk faster. Rather, use it to winnow out all but the most persuasive points.)
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm a hijabi queer, trans nonbinary, disabled law student. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."
At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.
Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list
I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.
Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.
IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC
Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.
Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff
CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good
I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.
DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)
CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit
K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.
Generic Theory Stuff:
T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.
Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.
I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.
CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea
Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.
27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD
28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.
29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants
30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.
tldr: I am a traditional judge. It is probably in your best interest to run a traditional case. But if you feel the need to run something non-traditional I will do my best to keep up (especially if I'm the only judge on your panel who prefers traditional).
SPECIFIC TO NCFL - Given the topic, I'm totally fine if NEG wants to countercase.
I am the assistant speech and debate coach at Pennsbury HS in Pennsylvania. I competed primarily in Congressional Debate and Extemporaneous Speaking. I was a 3x NSDA qualifier in Congressional Debate.
First and foremost, know that I am not usually a debate judge. I've judged my share of PF and LD, and I have a general understanding of how to judge both events (so I'm not a lay judge insofar as that I do have an idea of what I'm doing). For that reason, I prefer traditional arguments, but I can deal with progressive cases if you have an interesting perspective (but I would definitely lean on the side of traditional). I'm also okay with counterplans (in LD), but I will caution that I am almost always on the lookout for a mutual exclusivity argument from Aff when I hear counterplanning from the Neg. So if you're going to run one on Neg, be absolutely certain that what you're proposing cannot exist in an Aff world. If it can, and Aff points it out, my ballot is almost always decided then and there.
I can deal with K's, theory, phil etc. But please explain some of terms you're using if you can - I don't know all of the acronyms and me being confused is probably not good for you. Err on the side of traditional if you can, as that's what I'm best equipped to judge. But if I'm the only judge on your panel with these preferences, run your progressive case - I'll try and keep up.
Because I enjoy a good debate, here are my preferences:
- Come prepared with all of your cards organized. I don't want to sit there and waste time while you fish around to find a specific card.
- Speed: Spreading will make it so that I can't include as much info on the flow - my typing is not super fast. In terms of speed, I suggest that you speak quickly but don't spread.
- Please signpost and lay out a roadmap, ESPECIALLY in your rebuttal speeches. I'm cool with off-time roadmaps (in fact, I encourage it).
- I will time you, but I expect you to time yourself and your opponents - I will stop flowing if you go over time.
- I appreciate a good clash over a good point. It makes filling out my ballot much easier when I can link arguments together.
- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE weigh the round. I cannot stress how important it is for you to lay this out in your rebuttal speeches.
My email is email@example.com if you have any more questions.
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!
Hey y'all, my name is Colin, I did traditional ld for 4 years in high school and now attend Duke.
Please no progressive arguments or spreading, I will drop you. Keep the jargon to a minumum. I don't know what a counterplan is.
I highly prefer debaters who speak at a slow conversational and clear pace.
I also like to see more original analysis and voter issues.
I didn't flow as a competitor and I won't start now.
Please be respectful to each other in the round and remember to have fun.
If you have any other questions feel free to ask in the round.