My name is Lauren Higdon and I live in Lexington, Ky. I am a parent of a Senior PF debater and am a lay judge. As a longtime business owner, therapist, and teacher, my experience enables me to be quite neutral, see the big picture and help facilitate a respectful debate. I am not interested in you impressing me but rather to inform me with strength, clarity and civility.

Please remember to do your best, be kind and be yourself. Do not speak over your opponent or fast talk. Please do speak at a moderate pace and BE CLEAR so that I can effectively understand and take notes on your argument. This helps me to properly evaluate and make my decision at the end of the round.

I am open to any type of argument. That being said, I can be persuaded by opponents’ claims that particular interpretations are abusive. Be prepared to defend why what you’re doing is fair and have reference available. Remember to be clear and confident in your delivery.

Best wishes for the tournament!

I use she/her pronouns.

I have coached all forms of debate, with students as state champions, national qualifiers, and national outrounds (mainly in LD, but also CX, PFD, and congress). While I am a coach of 20+ years, I like to be treated as a lay judge. My philosophy is that regardless of the style of debate, you should never assume that your judge knows more than you and it is your responsibility to educate them on the topic. That means:

1) I prefer speech habits that emphasize persuasiveness and understanding. Don't spread, make sure to signpost, and think about how you can use your voice to emphasize key points.

2) Avoid topic-specific jargon. We are not researching this stuff to the level that you do as a competitor. Don't throw out an acronym without telling me what it stands for, unless it is a universally-known one (i.e. NATO). Sometimes even terms of art in the resolution aren't really known to the judge, so it is helpful to clarify. That also goes for complex ideas and theories.

3) Explain your arguments/contentions. Just reading card after card does not showcase your logic. Remember the warrant -- WHY does that evidence matter? And with that said, what is the impact? I love a good impact.

Updated 5/26/23

I think it is very important to argue the framework debate, do not just argue impacts and weigh evidence, link it through the framework (either yours or the opponent's) and argue why you win through the framework.

Background: I debated in high school 2011-2013 primarily in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I competed both nationally and locally throughout my time in debate. I am familiar with most arguments: theory, ks, micro-political positions, etc. I haven't judged in a few years though so please don't assume I know what you're talking about if you're using or referencing a current trend in debate. I'm open to hearing those arguments, just explain them to me so I'm not lost.

I am fine with whatever in debate rounds. My only exception is arguments that are generally morally offensive or inconsiderate to people's lived experiences. For example, don't argue racism is good. Other than that, I am fine with whatever arguments you want to make in the round as long as you are clear and do the work to explain the argument.

I believe speaker points are for people who speak well and who wins the debate is based on the substance of the arguments and the technical skill of the debater.

If you have any specific questions about my judging paradigm or preferences, please ask. You can be as specific as you like, I'd much rather you ask me than not.

General Experience and Views

I've been participating in debate, as either a coach, judge, or competitor since 2017. Most of my competitive experience is in Congressional Debate, but I have ample experience with PF and LD as well. For all events, I will weigh heavily against students who spread in their speeches. I don't want to be shared on your cases, it should be able to speak for itself and you should be articulate enough for me to be able to flow everything.

Congress

Clash is my number one priority for congress, this is what makes or breaks a round. If you do not incorporate clash with other students in your speech (with the exception of authorship and first negative speakers), then you are not going to do well. You should also be clashing during questioning by asking hard-hitters, not softballs or fluff.

I prefer for there to be some signposting during a congress speech, although you have limited time so I won't be too harsh on this. At the very least there needs to be some organizational structure.

As a congress judge, I DO FLOW. This means that I will be weighing not just on individual speeches, but how you are able to defend yourself in your own questioning period and how you respond to clash with your arguments in other student's questioning periods. If someone clashes with a point you made and you have no response in questioning or in another followup/crystallization speech, this will reflect poorly on your ballot.

A final score for a congress round is not supposed to be equal to your average speech score (though it can be and often works out that way), it is an indicator of your overall performance in the round, including factors like questioning, decorum, chamber presence, etc.

For POs, you do not need to stand out or be the most visible person in the room. In fact, it is often better for you to do your job as unimposingly as possible. As the leader of the student congress, you have a responsibility to uphold all rules and procedures and you should not rely too heavily on your parli or other students to help you fulfill that role. Make sure you are calling out prefacing and not unfairly prioritize certain people during questioning. Otherwise, you should not seek to impress me all that much. If the round runs smoothly and there are no major conflicts or hiccups, you will do well as PO. Finally, I really really really don't want to see any POs state the number of speeches and questions given during the round and I don't want to hear about which bills passed and failed. Orders of the Day is clearly defined in the rule book as a calling back of any tabled bills that have yet to be voted on, nothing more.

PF and LD

These debate events are much more independent so as your judge, I don't want to have to hold your hand or walk you through the round at all. I will be keeping time but I expect you do the same. Don't spread in your constructive, don't be abusive in questioning, be mindful of your decorum while your opponent is speaking, and I'll be happy.

For how I weigh rounds, it will vary depending on the content of the debate. I'm not always going to favor the side that wins on framework if their case is simply worse and they lost on most contentions. Similarly, I'm not always going to favor the side that had the greatest number of contentions extend if that speaker was spreading or their framework was inadequate. Make voting issues clear and convincing in your FF/NR2/AR2 and if your voters match the extended framework, that's how I'll weigh most rounds.

During CX, don't waste your opponent's time by bringing in new arguments. You can make arguments in questioning, but don't sit there and just pre-flow your case during CX, that's annoying.