Experience: I have 8 years of experience in Debating and Judging Public Forum, Policy, LD, Parli, and Congress. I have Qualified and won the state championship 4 years in a row. I started my Debate career as a 7th-grade student and by the time I was in 11th grade, I was the Debate president. After graduating from Highschool, I help coach my high school team and help other teams as well. In college, I have founded my debate team and now have over 45 students on the team.

Online Tournament’s: Please add this email to the email chain or google docs created: abdullahakl9876@gmail.com

P.F. ROUNDS ( Scroll down for LD )

I love clashes between arguments; boil down your arguments and tell me explicitly why you won the round and on which terms. Explain and analyze every piece of information even though I might already know what you're talking about. I deeply enjoy the use of fallacies while refuting evidence. I'm most likely to vote for you if your argument is wrapped around the extensive use of statistics and logic. Furthermore, I don't mind spreading, but I prefer if you could read at a leveled tone of voice; the debate is not about throwing arguments at my face, but about connecting them to the resolution at hand.

I understand the frustration of debaters when they encounter biased judges, this is why I completely place my beliefs aside; feel free to run any argument you like, at the end of the day the ballot doesn't depend on your beliefs, but on how you run your arguments and apply your knowledge into the round.

Specifics on speeches:

1. I weigh the round on the established framework and how the speakers appeal to it.

2. All impacts should be warranted, linked, and with In-text citations to be valuable in my ballot.

3. All forms of refutation are good with me as long as they are sustained with factual evidence and quantification

4. Arguments dropped in the summary will not be taken into consideration in my ballot.

5. The Summary should be a weighing machine in the round, weighing done only in the final focus will not be considered in the round.

6. I am very flexible when it comes to final focus, so just tell me why you won, and you should be good to go.

General:

1. CXs can be as aggressive as you want but don't cross the line. Being disrespectful will have effects on your speaker points.

2. Time yourself please

3. If you are asked for evidence try to show it quickly.

4. Personal insults, projections against debaters, intentional misgendering, discrimination, or pettiness will be penalized by taking speaker points off (and you'll probably lose the round).

5. Be on time to the round.

6. I don't flow CXs, but I do take them into consideration for weighing my ballot.

L.D. ROUNDS

You need to time yourself and know how much time you have left and how long your speech is supposed to be.

I vote primarily on frameworks. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable.

Speed. I'm okay with speeding. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Sign post what you're attacking or I won't flow it. I also prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Crossfire. I do not flow crossfire. If it's important bring it up in a speech.

Online Rounds. Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards or having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest.

-For some reason it's taking debaters a long time to find and send evidence, if you read it in a speech, expect it to be called and have it ready

Argumentation. I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I might have some trouble if you are going very fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the specific place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

Have Fun at the end of the day!

berryismichael@gmail.com

Policy debate at Southwestern College for 2 years, NPDA at SDSU for 2 years.

Run what you want. also don't be racist or sexist.

1. I ask that your argument be specifically related to the resolution for me to consider it as a strong case. If your points, contentions, etc., could equally be applied to a hundred other resolutions, I will generally consider you to be running a generic argument and to not have done any specific research on the resolution at hand. Of course, you are welcome to run such general contentions; I am just less likely to see them as strong points if they're not specific to the resolution.

2. Likewise, you are welcome to speak too fast and get out of breath if you feel it will help you make your case. However, I don't have your notes and it's neither my job nor your opponent's job to decipher what you are saying. So, if I or your opponent can't make out what you're saying due to speed, that's on you. If you can combine speed and clarity, I'm fine, but I have found that combination is generally rare.

3. In LD, I would prefer to see contentions clearly tied back to values etc. as much as possible.

In short: keep contentions specific to the resolution at hand as much as possible, make clear the relation of contentions to values, and speak clearly.

I consider myself a traditionalist. Lincoln-Douglas debate was created for a reason. The intent of debate is to facilitate communication, therefore use of speed should not be the emphasis in this activity. A good litmus test is the following...would Abraham Lincoln have used spread during his debate with Stephen Douglas? No? Then you probably shouldn't either. Exchange of ideas, discussion of which value is superior, respect and civility should be of paramount importance. Analysis and organization is extremely important. The debater in front of me should explain why their analysis is superior and why their value defeats the opposition.

As I noted above, the intent of debate is to facilitate communication. Speakers need to remember, and this is extremely important, that communication is not only about speaking, but it is also about listening. I have seen it happen more times than I can count, that your opponent will give you information to flip against them in the round, and that flip is not utilized. The tough part is identifying that information. Do not be constrained by what is obvious, meaning do not be afraid to ask "what if". Lateral thinking therefore, is incredibly important to consider.

Further, I consider myself a pragmatist. Originally, Lincoln-Douglas debate was designed as a values-oriented platform. This has evolved into a policy-values hybrid so while I will look at a round from a purely values perspective, the values and values criteria have become more of a means/end assertion. The use of real world links and impacts should support your decision. If you are able to demonstrate why your real world analysis/evidence supports your values/values criteria and you set that parameter up front, I will strongly consider that as a voter. I would however note the following:: the links to your impacts are absolutely critical to establish in the round. Off time roadmaps are also important. Organization is absolutely critical. It is your responsibility to tell me where you are on the flow.

Impact calculus is one of the major concepts I will weigh in your round. That is an incredibly huge point to remember where I am concerned as a judge. However, it is important to consider the nature of the impact. This is where the aforementioned links come into play. Of further note, since LD has become a hybrid, I buy off on solvency being an issue as a means to justify the resolution. Those of you who have had me before as a judge know why that statement alone can determine an entire round. In short, back to the point on the "what if" issue I broached earlier, that would be a very good place to start.

I also look at framework. If you are going to run something out of the norm...i.e. counterplan, Rights Malthus, general breakdown of society, etc., you need to make sure your links are airtight, otherwise I will not consider your impact. The two would operate separate of each other if there is no link.

I started my involvement in LD in 1982, I also debated policy from 1980 to 1982, competed in speech from 1980 to 1984, and competed at the college level in the CEDA format in 1985 and from 1988 to 1990, and have been judging since 2014 in the Spokane, WA area. I also judged policy in the Chicago, IL area in the early 1990"s.

In terms of the January/February 2024 LD topic on reducing military presence in the West Asia/North Africa region, I have very unique experience and perspective. I am retired military, retiring in 2014 and having served 4 years active duty in the Navy and 16 years in the Washington Army National Guard including a one year deployment to Iraq from 2005 to 2006 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I saw first hand the effect of what many of you may try to argue. I also attended many briefings from subject matter experts prior to going in country, including geopolitical/economic briefings, etc. I do consider myself a bit more well versed than many judges in this field based on my personal experience. In short, examine your argumentation and analysis carefully. The bigger picture is a major area of focus and as the semester progresses, you will begin to see adjustments based on the feedback you are getting.

A couple of administrative notes. Eye contact is really important if for no other reason, to see how much time you have left. One of my biggest pet peeves is cutting off your opponent during CX. I have no problem annotating that you did so on your ballot so your coach can discuss the matter with you after the tournament. Civility and decorum are important, and I can surmise several of you have had this happen to you. I also do not have a problem with you timing yourself or sharing evidence, provided it does not detract from the overall use of time in the round.

Finally, it is extremely important to remember....this activity can be fun and it will help you in ways you can't even imagine later down the road. Everyone at this tournament, whether they are coaches, judges, your peers, etc...started as a novice. Bad rounds happen. They are a part of the landscape that is debate. This teaches an important life lesson. How do you bounce back from adversity? How do you apply what you have learned to make things better next time?

Remember that the case/argumentation you start off with at the beginning of the semester, will not be what you end up with at the end, provided you do a self assessment at the end of each round. Ask yourself what was supposed to happen. What did happen? What three things went well for you. What three things happened to you that are opportunities for improvement. If you are consistently applying these criteria, and using your coaches/opponents/peers as resources, by default your weaknesses will get shored up. Incidentally, this is a really good life skill as well and can be applied in the real world. Good luck to you going forward!

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

I don't prefer judging policy debate, so if I am sitting in front of you as your judge in policy it is because no one else was available. I'll do my best for you, but consider me a "Comms" judge, a mom one to boot! Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

I did Congress and LD for 3 years.

For LD:

- I focus heavily on the flow and the framework debate.

- Please signpost clearly, even if that means taking a pause before reading your tag-lines.

- Framework debate is really important to me in an LD debate, so make sure to emphasize the importance of your Value and Value Criterion

- I am okay with speed, if you are spreading please send a copy of your case

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Pronouns: She/her

Email: mariahjaynhays@gmail.com

Life is short, read whatever makes you happy at whatever speed you would like :) (barring anything grossly unethical)

Take a deep breath, you got this.

I'm volunteering as a judge and I used to be a circuit debater until 2012 getting to about half a dozen or so bid rounds and dropping them all (bummer) and I coached for a year privately after that for a handful of circuit debaters in Washington. I've since been far removed from the activity and have stopped the night sweats caused by fears of judge intervention. After looking at contemporary modern paradigms it seems that the more things change the more things stay the same for LD, so I'll try to recollect and/or rediscover the opinions I used to have. Granted, none of these opinions matter weighted against args made in-round.

Theory, Plans, Ks (I'll need handholding for these) etc. are all cool by me. It seems like most people LARP now, but imo non-consequentialist standards are legit and I think in LD ethics and meta-ethics should be regularly used to nullify offense (offense doesn't exist in a moral vacuum). Consequentialism is fine too but I found many of those debates to be hard to parse/weigh. Even with the best weighing, who can really tell the consequentialist difference between India-Pakistan Nuclear war (and the fallout thereafter) and the existential impact of global warming.

I feel like I default on:

Competing Interps

No RVI

Drop the arg (Not strongly held)

Some abusive arg might disproportionately waste your time to read theory on it if you can't win off it, but the threshold for dropping the arg is also significantly lower. Someone read 6 minutes of NiBs, and a minute of turns, and you go all in on winning NiBs bad and answering the turns then you're still in a good spot where an abusive argument doesn't warrant dropping the debater. I admit that's a cherry-picked example and folks can read disparate kinds of abusive offense that requires multiple T shells to handle.

I feel like I can handle spreading still (I'll say clear as many times as I need to) though I'll likely need to call for the text anyways, and if that's a concern I'll be happy to get a copy of your texts before you speech as I'm a better reader than listener. Speaking and communication matters but not to the extent that I'll ignore the apparent weight of args that are poorly explained, though merely saying "extend contention 1" is insufficient (I don't want to do work for either debater). I think speaks start at 27.5 and are largely impacted by argument clarity as time goes on.

I don't really have an opinion on prepping during cx or asking questions during prep. I'll ask the debaters to agree beforehand on what to do but I'll default to yes to prep during cx and yes to questions during prep. Imo, debaters should always answer clarifying questions about any arg that was presented during cx and prep.

I think disclosure is good but if a debater doesn't want me to disclose to them I won't, not sure if that also means I shouldn't disclose to the opponent.

No matter how intelligible the above seems, please ask me questions before the debate if you have any because I'm absolutely rusty. I'm a software engineer and somehow can't figure out why tabroom is tossing my paradigm's formatting, so sorry for that..

My email is hello@jaydanhoward.com

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

Parent, communications degree, professional - Operations manager. My daughter calls me a Flay judge, in between a Lay judge and Flow judge. Will understand the arguments but you will need to speak more slowly, clearly, communicate and persuade me. Be polite, be smart, sign-post. In rounds I like more straight forward debates, alternative plans need to clearly relate to the resolution.

I am a former high school and college CEDA debater (UofO) and college NDT coach (graduate assistant coach at USC) and former Director of Forensics at SDSU. I am also a former professor of Communication at UW, with an emphasis on argument, persuasion, rhetorical theory and criticism. As such, I will be a critic of argument. I have not been in the field for years. I prefer sound reasoning and analysis to "blippy" superficial tags and points. A quick rate of speech is fine, if it has substance. The quality of your research and sources will be of value; the consistency of your use of a source with their overall position is important; The internal reasoning in the evidence has weight. Have a tag, qualify your source, read the quote. I am unlikely to be persuaded by a tag line, a last name and a date, and something that follows that it not clearly the quote. Make it very clear where the evidence/quote starts and where it ends, and where your analysis/impact statement about the evidence starts. Depth of insight is preferable to breadth of expression. Focus on sound, smart and thoughtful questions in cross periods. Although not necessarily on the flow, it will reflect command of issues, reasoning and demonstrate civility. Enjoy, employ your strategy, show respect for the subject and your opponents. I have noticed what I see to be a pattern. Consistent with the need to understand implicit bias, I will attend carefully to my impressions. However, I see aggressiveness and rudeness/dismissiveness directed at female competitors by males more than I see it directed at male competitors by male competitors. I ask that all opponents be treated with respect and to be aware of your own potential implicit bias in the communication toward and attitude about your opponents, regardless of who they are.

email: avy.renee.hine@gmail.com

i went to centennial and did ld throughout high school- got bids to the toc. now i'm in my fifth year doing policy debate @ gonzaga.

tldr: read what you want. i read policy arguments, but i have a history of being more flex. i like to evaluate policy debates. with that being said, i have a lot of respect for the time put into researching and preparing for each tournament and will evaluate whatever you read with as little bias as i can. i'm pro-technical debating and anti- "big picture" styles of debating unless you are really excellent. i also don't like listening to sloppy spreading- i am a good flow so be as quick as you like, but be clear, emphasize tags, and make sure you make it obvious when you're moving between cards *esp online*. if you cant do that, go slower. dont ask me to give 30s, there wont be a punishment, but i just wont. otherwise, be strategic and have fun!

some argument things!

k-affs & fw teams:

BOTH TEAMS: please don't just read blocks. debate things line by line and actually engage in a discussion of the distinction between the models both teams are defending in the interp debate. if youre able to draw differentials with thoroughly impacted out standards, you'll probs be sitting pretty at the end of the debate. dont forget to do impact comparison.

k- aff teams-- extend, explain, and weigh your offense against the defensive arguments made by the negative. if fw isnt the 2nr, i am not a good judge for the argument that they should lose for reading fw in the 1nc/block unless the neg made some serious blunders on the page/kick out. i appreciate k teams who play defense to negative fw arguments, not just offense throughout the debate-- especially if you're going for the impact turn. i am not super enthusiastic about "dont evaluate competing models just evaluate this round" but im willing to listen if that is the crux of your strategy.

fw teams-- i will vote on procedural fairness, but i think most teams do a better job utilizing it as an internal link. i am sympathetic towards switch side debate arguments. i think something that differentiates me from most fw judges is i dont think that a tva is the most important thing to win bc sometimes there are affs that dont have topical versions. but i do expect a defense of policy education that is specific to why the topic is good. if you aren't winning either a tva or a general defense of policy education, it will be much harder to win your education offense.

ks:

i don't like watching k debates that are predominately embedded clash. keep things organized. if there is going to be a long overview, let me know because i will flow it on a separate piece of paper before getting to the line-by-line stuff.

i usually lean towards letting the affirmative weigh the aff, but taking into account their epistemology/research practice/ontology for links. tell me why the links outweigh/turn the aff or spend ample time on framework explaining why they shouldn't get to weigh it. this requires clash with their interp and direct response to their offense.

debating the alternative v case is fun ! make sure it exists !

da/cps etc.

pretty straightforward for me. check the boxes, use good spin, etc. i am more persuaded by evidence quality than evidence quantity. there are rarely situations where there is 0 risk of a link-- if you have a cp that solves all the aff and a DA with just defense on it, its really hard for the aff to win. but there is always risk that a cp doesnt solve. 2nc da/cps are fair game-- its a constructive! be gamey, but not sloppy. the closer the debate, the more evidence i will read.

2ar/2nrs should tell the story of why they win and not just what they are winning (impact comparison!) take into consideration the other side's story and tell me why that isn't good enough to beat what you're going for. make strategic decisions and write my ballot for me. judge instruction is never looked down on.

t v policy affs:

i enjoy these debates. go slower on the standards.

theory stuff:

i generally think condo is good, but i will obvi vote on it. if you're going to go for it, invest the time and ink. i don't LIKE to judge kick but i will if told to by a 2nr who is winning condo; if its not instructed, i won't do it on my own volition.

default to reject the arg, not the team for everything except condo.

misc:

i love case debate, it is probably my favorite part of a debate to watch and do. do it. regardless of types of arguments you are running. i will vote on presumption but don't just go for presumption because you're losing your off-case arguments. if you are going to go for presumption, it should be a thoroughly developed strategy.

otherwise, be good people & have fun! if you have any questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round (: cheers!

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

I'm a parent judge who has been judging nearly every tournament for 5 years for my kids.

No Swearing.

No spreading. I can't understand it, and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you and that's sad.

Sign post. If you don't sign then I get to guess where what you say applies and you don't want me to do that. I often don't guess correctly.

Provide impact(s). Tell me why what you said is important. It should not be a restatement of your contention.

Don't make me think for myself. Please tell me how to think, how to judge how to apply your arguments. Otherwise I have to use my own bias to draw the lines, no one wants this. Not even me. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. If one is better explained, I will go with that one. Make sure you case is well-explained.

For CX
hlsoderquist@gmail.com for document sharing.

• Use 5th grader terms. While I am aware of Ks, T args, perms and the like, my knowledge comes from their use in LD, so my depth is lacking. If you accidently use a term in round please explain it.

• Seriously, please don't spread. I'm sorry. I will say out loud "clear" if you are going too fast. Most likely, you are going too fast. I'm sorry. Slow down on taglines, contention names, and other very important issues...like your case. I'm sorry.

• I think linearly, so don't rely on my ability to multi-thread thoughts in order to get through your links to your impacts. Keep it simple OR clearly connect it for me. If it is muddy or I don't get it, I will not vote on it. Your job is to explain your case to me in a way that I can vote and understand it. In other words, I am a flow judge.

• If you "kick" something, please tell me the tagline or contention or argument name and instead say We or I am dropping this. If not, once again, I will guess what you dropped, and that could be really bad.

• My favorite cases are ones that outline their case, support it with evidence, explain the evidence and tell me what and why I am voting for them. Contentions - Impacts - Voters

• If you change the role of the ballot, tell me what triggered it, why it is more important than the resolution and what the new role is. I will then be able to decide if I want to use your new ballot, or if your arugment is lacking I will keep the current one. This must be a rock solid argument and trigger for the new role.

• I will go wherever you take me. I am happy to entertain any debates backed by evidence and a clear train of thought. Nuclear war, extinction, fascism, and all the things are on the table. But please argue them with tact and warrants and clearly show me how we will get there. If you can do this, I am willing to judge it and weigh it in the round.

• Thanks for accommodating me and good luck.

For PF, if you use a RA, make sure your contentions support your analysis. Ensure I know why it is important to judge on that analysis.

For LD, I expect a traditional LD debate on moral grounds tied to a value and seen through the lens of your value criterion. Make sure all of your contentions support that value/value criterion.

I like a clear case with well defined arguments. I am an Industrial Automation Engineer who designs autonomous machinery. Give me facts and data to judge by. No fear mongering. Emotional arguments will not impress me.

ncsoderquist@gmail.com

ALL EVENTS: I WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANY OTHER HATE SPEECH. Please do not use speech and debate as a platform to spread any type of hatred. You will not win my vote.

This is my fifth year judging. Past Asst. Coach at Middle School for Public Forum. I debated in High School. I have one child in LD.

DEBATE:

I like the clash, but keep it polite. My biggest pet peeve is poor sports-person-ship. I do not mind if you take control of your cross-ex. Argue your points, and refute your opponents. Back up with facts, quotes, stats. Use impacts and YOUR VALUE!!! Use your VC as a weighing mechanism. I am a flow judge and follow my flow and arguments made there. I am a tech over truth judge. Lead me through your evidence and tell me how to vote. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. Don't make me guess or make my own conclusions, as they may not match what you are presenting. In other words, impacts and voters.

Slow down on tags and contention tags. If it is critical to your case, slow down for that portion and taglines. Enunciation is key for me to understand your case. If I am trying to figure out what you said, I miss your case. Spreading is an art form that has guidelines, breathing patterns, and rhythm. Don't confuse talking fast with spreading, they are two different things. If I cannot flow it, I do not judge it. If I stop typing, you know I am not getting it.

I do not judge on cross-ex. I will flow it, because I have the memory of a goldfish, and if you bring it back into round, I want to have notes on it. But if you do not bring it into round, it flies away and never comes back again. If it is a good point, don't let that happen.

IEs:

I will count stutters/missteps and crutch words. If a round is close I will rank off who has less. Tone/Infection are important during any speech, use them. Work on not yelling to show all emotions in any speech. Anger/Sadness has many faces, explore these to rank higher. Those who have their presentation memorized will rank higher than those who do not.

Informative: You got to pick your topic. Make it FUN and INTERESTING to me. Show me your passion and excitement about the subject. Be a human in your speech, not a robot. Please do this by making jokes, puns, or using conversational speech to keep me hooked. Pieces with good transitions, hooks, and conclusions rank higher.

Impromptu: I look for a framework. If you set a framework for your piece, I expect you to follow it. You don't have to have 3 points if you have a strong speech with 2.

Have fun and good luck! :-)

quick prefs - I'm a parent judge

1- traditional, lay debate

2 - 4 - everything in between not really preferable only pref me high if you want to do traditional lay debate

5/strike - circuit debate, spreading, high theory, Phil, ks, t/tricks, literally anything that's not lay

General comments

- assume I know nothing about the topic (explain everything to me)

- give voters and clearly articulate why I should vote for you at the end of the round

- be respectful, don't make racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist arguments, such arguments will result in a L20

- speaker points start at 26 and only goes up from there

- I don't "flow" but I will be paying attention to the round and evaluating based on whoever gives clear voters or have clearing won the round

- for online debate I don't care if you turn your cameras on

- put me on the email chain, Calvin.wang@trocha.com.tw

- my idea of autonomous weapons are weapons that attack by itself, without human intervention, this means that you will need to put in more work to convince me otherwise in the round if you define things such as drones or landmines as autonomous weapons

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Please feel free to direct more specific questions to nwilloughby98@gmail.com

I have competed in policy debate at the University of Puget Sound since 2017.

Short Version: Run whatever you want in front of me as long as it is not an anti-ethical position. I am open top be persuaded by most arguments that are warranted and impacted out.

Long Version: I think debate is a s competition, but to only categorize it as so would essentialize the community and investments in this activity. I am open to performance, policy, FW, conversation debate, as long as you have some justification for your model of debate I can vote on it. In round violence performed through rhetoric or otherwise is very serious and can outweigh any extinction impact scenario.

I think that warranted and impacted analytics have just as much weight in round as cards being read. Also, reading a card is not an argument, it must be contextualized and analyzed from your position for it to mean anything in round.

Although I listen to FW debates, I prefer when there is a creative/non-generic position that is upheld in these type of debates. One-off FW on the neg without the aforementioned creativity is boring and no one wants to have those debates. That being said, you do you and just be able to justify your position and if it is compelling I will vote on it.

T shells need TVA's to be voting issues. Please articulate what ground is lost to the other team so this can be flushed out and nuanced.

I think impact framing is imperative to the rebuttal speeches, but needs to be introduced before the 2NR and 2AR. You don't needs cards to make these args, just reasons to prefer.

As far as K debate goes, I have knowledge on most bodies of literature. I do K debate, and run arguments about Settler Colonialism, gender and queer args, anti-statism generally, Deleuze, Foucault, etc. I'm a political theory major so I also have my foot into liberalism, fascism, etc. I am open to any type of K you decide to run. As far as winning K debates, I think the link needs to be specific to the Aff and also needs an impact. K's don't need alts but they are very helpful as they can frame your solvency to both the links and the DAs made.

Finally, I think the performance in-round is a voting issue on top of the in-round abuse i detailed above. Eg debate is a rhetorical/performative event and I treat it like so. Make your speeches good, don't sound like a robot, and BE CLEAR! If you sacrifice clarity for speed I will take off speaker points. I prefer clear, slow arguments to fast, hasty ones that lost their parts. However, if you're fast and clear I can flow you just be aware of whether or not I am flowing because I will stop if I don't know what you're saying.

NYU ‘22

Stuyvesant High School ‘18

She/Her Pronouns

Conflicts: Stuyvesant High School, Interlake AS, Interlake DB, Interlake AG, Interlake EL, Northview YS, North Mecklenburg PM, Lexington AK.

Please do email chains, flash drives are obnoxious (pacy.yan@gmail.com)

If you have questions about my paradigm/preferences/whether or not I would tank speaks for certain things, email me or ask me before the round. This would be preferable to me having to resolve the issue in round or lowering your speaks unnecessarily.

*Brief TOC Update: I have not judged in a long time. I coach a bit still, but I am not caught up on the current meta as much as I was before. This means two things for you: a) you should absolutely not act as though I know what you're talking about and b) really listen/slow down when I ask you to.

*Dogmatism: I have recently written an article with Joanne Park about my position on some of the ongoings in debate culture, specifically on the issue of dogmatism. You can find the article here.

Short

1) Tech>Truth Do whatever. I will not paradigmatically hack against any particular real arguments. I do not care what you do in terms of how I judge. I have arguments that I strongly dislike and arguments that I like, but will try not to reflect this in my speaks as much as possible.

2) Don't be mean. I hold the position that I cannot ethically vote for arguments that would be endorsing acts of particular forms of interpersonal violence. This line might become hard to draw. I am fine with heg good, authoritarianism good, skepticism, etc., and it is a bit unclear to me what the difference between some of these positions and the arguments I might find ethically hard to vote for are such as racism good, sexual assault good, etc. are so this might result in me making judgement calls during round. I will attempt to be as reasonable as possible. I also dislike it when more experienced debaters purposely make rounds exclusionary to younger and less resourced debaters. Of course, this judgement is hard to make sometimes as well, but I will lower speaks if I am certain it is happening.

3) I'll say clear/slow unless its obvious you are not listening when I do.

4) I don't flow off the speech doc.

5) I have done a little bit of policy in college.

Longer Version:

1) I did LD for four years and ran whatever. I ran Ks for a year and I ran theory and phil for a year. As a result, I know some range of literature, but that should not be relevant. I go to NYU now and study philosophy.

2) I aim to be as least interventionist as possible. The more irresolvable a round is, the more I have to intervene. I get annoyed when I have to do this. I view having to use defaults as intervention.

3) I make faces sometimes. I aim not to, but sometimes I might communicate annoyance or amusement. Sometimes, I might communicate deep confusion. I've been told by some people that I appear angry or like I'm glaring sometimes. At any rate, some of my faces might not be your fault, but if its obvious I'm reacting to your speech or your opponent's speech, someone has probably done something wrong or right.

4) I don’t flow off the speech doc and I’ll only check it if a) I messed up on my own and missed something or b) it’s a round where the quality of evidence matters. I'm really bad at flowing author names, so reference arguments only by author at your own risk.

5) I pay more attention to CX now.

6) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to and you probably will not change my mind on:

- Tech > truth

- Truth > Tech requires tech for you to win it. I am extremely unconvinced that judges can have a role in the debate that requires them intervene based on what they think is true. The only exception I can see is when there is an obvious violation of or issue related to the safety of the students. In those cases, I will, if aware of the situation, stop the debate and report it to tab if I deem that it is appropriate to do so.

- Nothing is a voter until you've made an argument that it is.

7) Here's some stuff related to framing that I think makes sense to default to, but would heavily prefer to hear a debate about if it is relevant:

- Lexical Priority > Strength of link (this just means if a claim that “aff theory outweighs neg theory” or something of the type is made, I evaluate aff theory regardless of what is won on neg theory. I also think strength of link/modesty weighing is strange when it is different layers, so if you want to go for that weighing, please justify it.)

- Generally probably low threshold for warrants if they are conceded, but if the argument is directly interactive with other warranted arguments and you are light on your warranting in extension, I will probably be receptive to “no warrant was extended” and not be super persuaded by that argument. Light warranting is also at your own risk because if the debate gets muddled, my threshold for warrants rises as I sift through arguments in an attempt to make the debate more resolvable and if the opponent points out that there isn’t a warrant for the extension of the argument that might hurt you.

- You don’t have to bother extending paradigm issues if they’re conceded, but this might harm you if the opponent makes it an issue.

- Fairness > Education

- T = Theory

- Competing interps

K v Theory or Substance

- Non "Prefiat" Ks = Substance

- K ROBs = Ethical Frameworks

- "Prefiat" Ks = Fairness/education (on theory)

8) Here are some thoughts I believe. Most function indifferently to how I judge rounds if both debaters make good arguments.

General

- Debate's a game. I have never heard a good argument against it being so. Debate being a game is not mutually exclusive with it having other important things.

- Disclosure is good. Full text disclosure is not preferable to non-full text disclosure. Open source is good. I am, however, unsure as to whether voting on out-of-round violations is a defensible norm.

- I do not like it when people rely on ethos to win rounds. I expect you to make arguments, not assertions said in a nice way. Because of that, I will likely be decently picking when deciding between warrants.

T/Theory

- Nothing is a voter until you make an argument. Theory doesn't have an impact until you make an argument.

- Metatheory does not paradigmatically come before theory.

- A lot of theory is silly. I do not care that much about the content of your shell, but if its not strategic that will be reflected in your speaks.

- Theory/Spikes heavy affs are fine. If I didn't catch it, it doesn't exist.

- I am unsure on whether certain violations e.g. evidence ethics are good enough reasons to stop rounds. I will try avoid doing so while I remain unsure.

- I do not think I can coherently evaluate “evaluate theory after x speech” if x is the speech you’re currently giving. I have the intuition that it is additionally outside of the debater's jurisdiction to make such an argument, but I'm unsure exactly why.

Tricks

- I am not totally sure what counts as a trick, but "tricks" are a part of the debate lingo, so I figured I'd say a few things about what I think. For the sake of the paradigm, I am generally referencing to what people might refer to as tricks or tricky debate.

- Many tricks are quite unintelligent. It is silly to act as if they're intelligent. I would appreciate if you did not. I do not like unintelligent tricks much, but I find them amusing sometimes. I do not like arguments that purely exist so that your opponent misses them, but I am not sure this is unique to "tricks" as opposed to other areas of debate.

- Some tricks, on the contrary, are quite intelligent. Well-developed logical arguments that reach seemingly odd or unintuitive conclusions might be considered a trick by some, but many of these arguments are really quite fun to me. Tricks or tricky arguments that are well-developed make me really happy!

- If I didn't flow it, it doesn't exist.

Phil Framework

- In debate, ethical confidence makes more intuitive sense to me than ethical modesty.

- Probably my favorite part of debate, but also frequently bastardized.

- People who know what they're talking about are good!

- I think tech and efficiency on framework debates is sometimes my favorite part of debate.

- The NC AC 1NC makes me happy.

- I do not like impact justified frameworks.

- I am sad that phil debate is frequently seen as being the same as tricks debate.

Ks

- I am not paradigmatically against Non-T affs. I did read them in my career. I do not like it when debaters pretend to be topical when they are not. Consequently, I do not believe there are "pseudo-topical" affs.

- Many word PIKs are silly to me. People shouldn't use slurs, but I am not sure other words are significant enough to justify word PIKs. Part of the reason many of them feel silly to me is because they are very rarely taken seriously by the people who read them.

- I do not think framework Ks are voting issues. I also really strongly dislike the way framework Ks are read. I think there are genuinely interesting points of philosophical interest to consider when thinking about whether an author's personal views can be disconnected from philosophy, but this debate is never had.

- A lot of K debate can be somewhat boring. Debaters frequently only extend taglines and rely on buzzwords and judge familiarity to get away with arguments. Redundancy and lack of specificity are things I strongly dislike and something I observe on a lot of K debates.

- A lot of continental philosophy sounds and looks like actual nonsense. I do not like personally trying to make sense out of nonsense nor do I like it when other people try and do it. The more I study analytic philosophy, the less appreciation I have for the esoteric and often unnecessary language in continental philosophy. Because of that, I also have even less appreciation for the esoteric and often unnecessary language debaters use in debate as they try and replicate that philosophy.

- I am not super into the call-out culture that debate sometimes has. I think this is a particularly untenable model in the context of HS debate, given that many of these people are minors. I think genuinely serious accusations should be brought to administrative adults in the community or, if necessary, other authorities. I am sympathetic to the idea that one might not want to debate someone who has done something problematic, especially to them, but I am unsure whether rounds themselves are a productive or good channel to communicate this issue with. I am also sympathetic to many of the reasons why one might not want to approach authorities or other adults in the community, but this does not wholly convince me that rounds are the solution to this problem. If I am put in the position to resolve issues related to serious violations of personal safety e.g. things that would constitute violations of the law, I will probably contact tab unless I have a very good reason not to. For issues that do not fall into that category, if I feel qualified to evaluate them, I will do so as I would a normal debate. If I feel that your "call-out" appeared unnecessary, unproductive, and done for the purpose of strategic value or for the sake of ethos guised in trying to be good, I will, at a minimum, tank your speaks.

Policy

- These debates are cool, but I will preface this by saying that coming from the Northeast means that I come from an area that really sucks at case debate and substance.

- Making creative solves case arguments is awesome, especially against affs that one wouldn’t think could be solved by the PIC (i.e. phil affs, K affs).

- I think LDers should utilize more of some of the weighing mechanisms and rhetoric used in policy (uniqueness args, sufficiency, etc)

- Structural violence makes me sad as a framework.

Non-T/K v Fwk/Theory

- The more I think about impact turns to theory/fwk, the less I am convinced they're voting issues. To me, they're either one of two things: 1) impact turns to the literal content of the shell e.g. fairness/education bad, in which case they warrant an RVI or 2) impact turns to the act of reading theory, which is meta theory. In my experience, it is very rarely justified as either.

- I do not think education is the most important impact of debate. I think fairness is the only thing that debate needs to be debate. It being a gateway to education is just an interesting FYI, not a reason education is preferable.

- Fairness bad arguments are really confusing sometimes.

- Framework is probably true.

To Do:

1) Be nice

2) Know what you’re talking about

3) Line by line stuff

4) Explain arguments

Not To Do:

Problematic things

- Endorsing oppression

- Being demeaning to people who are obviously not as experienced as you

- Being demeaning

- I will not evaluate "give me higher/30 speaks" arguments.

Technical Debate Things

- Spreading faster than you can

- Saying “gut check”

- Shadow extensions

- Putting case on the bottom of substance

- Not giving roadmaps by flows but instead by arguments

harvard update: “let’s steamroll these bowls”

emory update: "let's seize these keys" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 12/03/18

apple valley update: "let's grapple these apples" - david basile edwards (Charlotte Catholic DE), 10/29/18

I did two years of LD in HS but have not engaged with it much since then. Spread and run progressive arguments at your own risk. Be nice and be kind!