Fourth season as parent judge; practicing attorney (19 years).

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

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.

Hi!

My paradigm is pretty standard to what I believe congressional debate should be so feel free to ask me any questions before a round.

Background

I competed in congressional debate for 3 years in the Carolina West district. I made it to quarters at Harvard, finals at Duke, fourth in my district in senate, and finals at the North Carolina state tournament. I also made it to triple octas at Nationals in World Schools debate in 2019 and double octas in 2020. I currently attend North Carolina State University (go pack!) and I'll be attending Duke Law in the Fall so if you can fit in any silly or snarky comments about UNC (where appropriate!!) it'll be appreciated.

Constructive Expectations

First and foremost, your job is to walk me through the piece of legislation. Assume I have no knowledge of the bill itself.

-First Aff: I expect that you give me an explanation of the problem and how advocating for this piece of legislation solves this issue. I don't expect (but I'm not opposed to) refutation from your speech.

-First Neg: I do expect refutation from you and every speaker to come after you. I will have the expectation that you will walk me through the problem with advocating for this bill and how not doing anything to solve the problem the affirmative introduces will be better.

Refutation

-Every speech after the 1st affirmative should have refutation. I don't care how you organize it into your speech as long as it is clear that you are interacting with what other speakers have said in round.

-I don't, however, consider just listing the last names of previous speakers refutation. If you are going to tell me that what Representative/Senator ____ said is wrong, I expect that you tell me why it is wrong.

-I prefer more refutation from later round speeches as this prevents you from giving rehash points. You have also heard more speeches before you so you should have more to refute.

Impacts

-Impacts are huge. You need to go beyond a cause and effect and explain to me why that effect is so critical whether it be bad or good.

Evidence

-I love a good piece of case destroying evidence as much as the next judge but I do expect you to go beyond just your evidence. I don't care if you spent all week hunting for as many pieces of evidence as you could find. I'd much rather you give me one or two and give me an in depth analysis of that evidence and follow it up with an impact.

Delivery/Rhetoric

-I will not fault you for stumbles in your speech. Fluency comes with practice but I do expect that you will be able to maintain your composure and continue speaking.

-I'm a fan of cheesy intros and jokes throughout your speech as long as it is appropriate with what your speech is about.

-I do not recommend spitting out rhetoric that everyone uses. If I hear you telling me that affirming this bill is like putting a bandaid over a bullet hole expect a heavy eye roll. I've heard it before and I'm sure I'll hear it again. This is not creative and, more often than not, feels more like filler words in between what you're really trying to say.

-Just because you are capable of shouting your entire speech does not mean you should. Your speech should have an ebb and flow of emphasizing what is important and backing off on what is not.

Questioning

-I expect to see interaction and involvement in the chamber but asking 10 shallow questions just to ask a question isn't worth it. I would rather you ask 4 or 5 difficult to answer questions. That being said if no one is asking questions and you stand to ask some I will appreciate it. This is a debate event. Not a speech event.

-While I do prefer you don't begin to scream or yell over the other speaker, if it is clear they are dodging your question or trying to give an extra speech feel free to cut them off. However, I should not feel like I'm watching a cage match.

-Avoid prefacing. The NSDA has not explicitly banned this but I personally believe that disadvantages the speaker and is simply a lazy way to ask questions.

Presiding

-I expect that you do keep a correct precedence and recency chart and may ask to check it if I feel like something is wrong. I will leave you alone otherwise.

-I will not drop you for the occasional slip up as long as you correct it. Honestly, if you don't majorly screw up, you'll get my top eight, maybe even six.

-I will be keeping my own time, as well as precedence and recency. If I notice an issue that is not called out I may not say anything but I will mark it on your ballot. Unless it is a repeated issue or I notice a pattern it probably won't affect your ranking too much.

Misc.

-Do not rehash.

-I won't drop you if I see you were trying to get called on but didn't. I will judge you on the speeches you give.

-While I understand there will not be an even split on every bill, after a while there are only so many speeches I want to hear on the same side. I'd much rather you give me a slightly less prepared aff rather than the 4th neg in a row.

-Above all, have fun with it. Some people may be able to debate in college but not all so enjoy the time you have. Don't take yourself too seriously and be open to the possibility of not everything going your way.

WSD Paradigm General

-In my experience, WSD is not meant to be very technical. It's not PF or Policy and I expect you treat it as such.

-Keep a world view when making arguments. Don't make your entire case about this US.

-Don't spread. If you start to spread I will put my pen down and just stare at you until you finish. WSD is meant to be more conversational.

-Try to avoid debate jargon? I may understand some of it but maybe not all of it so try to avoid using it.

-Careful with POIs. I've seen rounds where people will take either too many or none at all and it can absolutely break your case.

-Provide clear road maps before you begin your speeches please. It helps me to flow and keep track of the round.

Quickest way to be dropped

I have enjoyed my career in debate for the four years I was able to participate in it. However, I as well as many others, have had their fair share of rude remarks thrown my way. I have absolutely zero tolerance for this. Racism, homophobia, xenophobia, sexism, ableism, and transphobia have no place in Speech and Debate and any of this will put you on the very bottom of my rankings. I expect that everyone is treated with equal respect and dignity.

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!

Parent judge, most experienced with Congress.

I appreciate credibly sourced research, well-constructed arguments, a clear speaking style, and most importantly, respect for your fellow debaters.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

I am a Mechanical Engineer and have over 25 years of experience in Project Management. Believe it or not, debate has been part of my entire career. I am logical, driven by numbers and facts. The only way to drive a good project is to have a good team with a good strategy.

I have been judging Congressional Debate for 5 years and occasionally LD and PF. I do prefer less and very well prepared arguments than many contentions thrown at light speed! So please be quick, clear and effective when you speak. Also, the use of current and updated data is important.

Please respond to your opponents questions clearly and to the point as you can loose points in my score sheet if you don't. Most teams come to the rounds very well prepared on their contentions, but lose the debate when they can't answer properly.

Also, if you know what you are talking about, if you are calm while talking about it and if you can show me that you care and that I should care too, it will make it very difficult for me to vote against you.

Be professional and respectful.

Background:

I've completed in the congressional debate circuit for three years in North Carolina, I have also judged Congressional Debate for nearly three years. I'm truly passionate about Congressional Debate and love when the debate comes to life. I enjoy Foreign Policy debate the most based on my personal interests.

Congressional Debate:

Congressional Debate revolves around one singular question, "who is the most convincing and strong legislator in the room?" There is many different ways to achieve this, via strong speeches, debate, or overall control of the room. A truly strong Congressional Debater will understand all of the major characteristic required to control the room, and thus will rank the highest on my ballot.

Speeches in Congressional Debate aren't supposed to be rehearsed multiple times, after the first affirmative and negative speeches there are elements of rebuttal that should be implemented into speech. These speeches should contain sources that connect to your main arguments and have a full flow into your final argument. If you're making points - they should have a reason and an end point.

Controlling the room and POing is one of the most daunting thing for new debaters, but I also highly value these people because the debate would simply not exist without a PO.

I love listening to congressional debate, and if you ever find yourself lost don't hesitate to reach out!