2020 — Online, WA/US
Lincoln Douglas Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
i've debated for two years.
I'm have been judging Mid and High school debate and speech since 2015 season and I think I know what I'm doing. I keep a reasonable flow. I can handle speed, but don't particularly like it.
I think a good debate round should engage in a substantive, rigorous, and critical discussion of the resolution, at the same time, be watchable to a general audience.
Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round. Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.
For Speech Events:
Relax and show your talent. Don’t rush and keep consistent pace of your speech. When entries that are really close in rank, the person who hit the purpose of the event most closely and whose performance flowed best will get better rank.
Remember to have fun, relax and enjoy the round!
***Ticky Tacky Stuff***
-No I do not care where you sit whether you are aff or neg. Aff can sit on the right or left... I don't care.
-If you have similar questions, like whether or not I care if you time yourself, take prep time, etc., the answer is I don't. I have been in debate rounds where the 1AC was a freestyle rap and poetry. There are no rules in debate besides time limits.
-Maybe instead of asking everyone in the room individually if they are ready, ask, "is there anybody not ready?"
-Don't start with your speech with "starting....my time.....now..." Or any variation of this. I don't know how this became a thing.
-Read impacts to things: tell me why economic collapse is bad instead of assuming I know.
-If you only have a lay case, which includes a variation of evidence and analytical arguments, do not speed unless you are super clear. I listen for tags/claims, the author, and date. I then wait until I hear another tag, author, date. I don't flow analytical arguments in fast rounds when they are mixed in with cards. I don't think that's even fair UNLESS you file-share/give your aff to the neg because they can't tell when the card author ends and your analytics begin. Ask about this if you don't get it!
LD has basically become policy, which is where most of my experience has come from.
Here is my experience, and I'll let you decide what you would like to read, I'm fine with anything you want to do.
4 years policy
4 years LD (NFL 08, 09)
4 years speech events
Wichita State Univ:
2 years policy
Kansas City Kansas Community College:
1 year policy (NDT 2011, CEDA Octos)
1 year LD (PRP National Chmpnshp)
Univ of Kansas:
1 year policy
Just a few simple things:
- Keep your arguments crisp and concise
- Speak clearly and slowly
- Present data to support your position; you won't win me with emotion
Please time yourself and don't talk over your opponent.
My knowledge about this topic is not as deep as the past years so please unpack your arguments :)
Add me on the email chain :) ---> firstname.lastname@example.org
Pronouns: she/her or they/them
Currently a 2N but was a 2A freshman year.
tldr; whatever arg you like I'm prob fine with it.
Write the ballot for me in the 2ar/nr -->super important and will increase your speaks a lot. It is also because I feel bad to intervene and make my decision that way :(
-------------below are some of my general thoughts-----------------
Tech over truth 99.9999 percent
Drop args count and I will vote on the stupidest arg but you need to tell me why it matters. I would say I have a lower threshold on buying dropped theory arg. you really just have to make it a voter.
Tag team cx ok, cx is binding, flashing/sending doesn't count as prep
Mostly do what you want, I will try to adapt.
Fairness is a internal link to education unless you tell me otherwise.
cp, da, t-- no one will not be fine with it so... idk what to say. offense is important.
case debates are sooo important! recuttings and indicts makes me happy
k- Most familiar with security, imperialism, gender, abolition etc. Bad k debates are the worst debate. If you don't know the lit then prob don't run it, it will probably tank ur speaks. Contextualize links plzz--> super important. I am not voting for you unless you can explain to me why the aff SPECIFICALLY links to the k. Saying "because they reform they link" is not a link for me. FW+link -->ok , I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac.
k aff- unless you can run it well or else bad k aff debates makes me sad. I don't think I am qual to judge a k v k round so plss don't.
Public Forum / LD
I guess if for some reason I am forced to judge one of these rounds I will view the round solely on my flow and mostly on impact calc made in the last speeches
I know speaks inflation gets kind of annoying sometimes but I still give relatively high speaks
cheating means auto loss and lowest speaks possible :(
-1 pt when you say "can I start prep?" or "Can I take a minute of prep" or "I'm speaking in 3, 2, 1.." or any variations. You are the one debating and you should be in charge of your own time and I don't need to know that.
Things that will increase your speaks:
1. look at me during cx
2. good case line by line/ good analysis
3. good impact calc in your last speeches
4. actively engage in the debate!
I usually give 28 or higher speaks
I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.
I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because you are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach, but have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.
What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:
If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.
I like to have a clear argument presented, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.
I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!
Most important thing to keep in mind: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.
Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I have my Bachelors in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa. Now, I'm enrolled in grad school at American University for a master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... email@example.com
Substance > Style
Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate
I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics
I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.
Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.
I debated local circuit LD for three years in high school. I will vote based on the flow/how you tell me to evaluate the round. I often end up voting on big picture and weighing arguments.
You can run progressive arguments but keep in mind that I'm not a circuit judge and I didn't do circuit debate so I may not have the same norms/make the same assumptions.
Email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Case/evidence email: email@example.com
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 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.
Disclaimer: I can only argue with what is presented to me in round. Ultimately, if you want to run something, who am I to stop you? I'm flexible enough to deal with it.
TLDR: Speed fine. K's n stuff fine. Do what you want.
I did LD the most when I was actively debating, but have experience with most other forms of debating and have actively judged for Pufo and Pol (Though still pref LD). I debated a wide range of arguments, from stock to progressive. I have a particular love for K's, especially so when they are accessible by everyone in round, and understood particularly well by the Debater running them.
All Prep is running prep. If you say you're only going to take two minutes of prep, end up taking an extra 30 seconds and try to pass it off as only two minutes... no... just no. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.
Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is less confrontational than CX and much more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX. Flex prep is Not binding as far as tricky questions go, however, if a debater willfully misrepresents their argument, I'm either slashing speaks or treating just that misrepresentation as binding, depending on how much that misrepresentation shifts the round. IE. If it becomes a centerpiece for the debate, it's binding. If it's just a side argument... speaks. Try not to do it.
As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuance difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.
K's function as their own FW. They don't necessarily need a super comprehensive FW with a K, the ALT and Link's are FW on their own. If those aren't sufficient, you can run a bit of FW up top or something, especially if your Alt is Drop the Debater... that isn't really a FW sufficient Alternative and you're going to need some work to set that up. Honestly, I have a higher threshold for Drop the debater args with no intrinsic justification then I do a more progressive mindset alt. You have to disclose an alternative for your K's when you read them, no more hidden drop the debater alt. I weigh the Alt as part of the K's FW. I think it's also good form for accessibility. If you don't disclose an Alt, I'm going to default it to Drop the Debater, and hope you provide justifications in the next speech and probably drop speaks a point or two.
I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth,knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself.
Not really a whole lot to say here, just debate it.
I'm fine with Speed and progressive argumentation.
That all being said, I can only vote for what is offered to me in round, and am pretty flexible with what the debaters want to argue.
Hey! My name is Atul Rao, and I attend Baylor University. I did debate for 3 years in high school and qualified for State in Public Forum. Speed is not an issue for me, but if you choose to speak at 2 million words per minute, do not be mad at me for not getting everything on the flow.
Please don't tell me when your time starts. I can tell when you start speaking. If you are doing PF, feel free to give me a road map, but I will count it as on time. If you are doing LD, I won't count them as off-time, so don't worry about that.
For speaks, you start at a 27 and then go up or down depending on what happens in the round. I don't flow cross, but I will be paying attention and listening so I can better represent your speaks. There is a difference between a good crossfire and just talking over your opponent. If you talk over your opponent the whole time, not only will I not flow the points you make in cross, I will drop your speaks as well. If your opponent says something in cross that you want me to flow, bring it up in a speech. Speaks are also independent of who wins. You and your partner can both get a 30 from me and still lose, and you can both get 25s from me and still win.
I am not a boxing referee. I do not enjoy shouting matches. If you use ad hominem, I will immediately give you a 20 in speaks for the round and will probably vote against you.
I also vote off of only what happens in the round. If your opponent says something that I know is untrue, and you let it go unrefuted, I will flow it. Don't worry, I will only flow things that are brought up multiple times, so you should have multiple chances to refute their untrue statements.
As smart as you may be, you are not an expert. If your opponent has a card saying something, and you refute it by saying that "it isn't true" with nothing to back up your claim, I won't buy it. However, if you use a card that refutes what your opponent says, I will buy it.
If your opponent doesn't do a line-by-line rebuttal, don't tell me certain cards have gone "cOmPlEtElY uNrEfUtEd" in the round. You can tell me a certain point, or sub-point, or contention has gone unrefuted, but you can't expect your opponent to rebut every single card you bring up in round. Don't bring up arguments that are not relevant either. If you make an argument in your case, and then drop it during rebuttal and summary, I will not flow it if you bring it up in your Final Focus.
I'll let you in on a secret here. Judges from certain schools oftentimes find out records of teams and sometimes are influenced in their decision making process by giving certain teams wins over other teams. Despite this, I will disclose results, but try not to tell your coach so that we can keep the playing field level for all debaters at this tournament.
Lastly, this is high school debate. Your chances for getting into Stanford are not going to be affected by how I vote in a round. I will do my best to give you guys the best RFDs I can, both in feedback and on your ballots. I do understand the feeling, though, when I lose a round and I cannot understand why I lost. If you feel the same way, please email me and challenge my decision. There's nothing I love more than a debater who wants to know absolutely everything about a round that they lost, because to me it screams of a love for debate.
If you made it this far, if you sign the "Remove France" petition on change.org and show me I will give you an automatic 30.
UNLESS YOU ARE IN POLICY, I DO NOT WANT OR NEED AN OFF-TIME ROADMAP
add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Don't lie, be considerate, treat me like an old man, and you'll probably be fine.
I've been involved with debate for eight years. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level (10th at Nats in 2019). I coach for a few different middle/high school programs around the Puget Sound area, compete at the university level, and am the content manager for TalkMaze. I’m a graduate student at the University of Essex studying the Theory and Practice of Human Rights.
You should read my whole paradigm - Some stuff in PF will be applicable to LD and vice-versa.
I cannot think of a single reason for me to care whether your camera is on. I can think of many reasons why you might be uncomfortable having your camera on. As such, I do not enforce camera policies.
I, on the other hand, will have my camera on. If I don't have it on, assume that I'm not present.
Have them! I have voted on evidence ethics in the past, both with and without competitors calling it out in-round. Don’t paraphrase - I want to see actual cut cards. You cannot take evidence out of context (this includes implying it supports something that the author doesn't) or manipulate the text in any way.
but still be clear, clarity trumps all
i do not like congress please don’t make me judge congress
the only event worse than Congress
Public Forum Philosophy
Debate is a game, and the most important thing to do in a game is to win (the second most important thing is to have fun). To that end, I am generally tech > truth, but I tend to sit right on the line between the two, so it's really important for you to explain the link chain, especially for big impact contentions. I will not vote for "oppression/death good".
The line-by-line matters a lot. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal. That means you should respond to arguments in an order that makes sense (down the flow). That means you should be actively extending your own arguments. I don’t want to extend arguments for you.
On the subject of extensions, two notes. First, for an extension to work you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it’s important. You can always do that in three sentences or less, and if you can’t, your argument probably isn’t realistic. Telling me “extend the Hendrickson card” means nothing to me because I don’t flow evidence names. Second, I'll only let you kick an argument if both sides agree to do it - Just saying "we aren't gonna go for that" doesn't mean your opponent can't keep pulling it through the round. Don't bring up arguments that you can't be bothered to defend throughout the round (this goes double for progressive argumentation).
In Public Forum, fiat is almost always going to be a thing. There’s a reason PF topics usually ask “is this policy a good idea” and not “will this thing happen”. That said, politics DAs can work provided they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and they don't say that a policy won’t happen because of politics.
Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there’s a legitimate violation and that it’s something you’re willing to bet the whole round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.
Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.
Lincoln Douglas Philosophy
only do off-time roadmaps if it's a really weird round.
I am a grad student in human rights, which means I have an irrevocable bias against util frameworks. I wouldn't say I hate them, but I do strongly dislike util framing. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but I won't like voting for them unless you go deeper than "greater good." What I will never do is vote for "oppression/death good" arguments.
I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my sole decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to explain how you want me to interpret the round if you don't use a value/criterion.
Don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time for my dissertation work and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.
I’m fine with condo, fiat, counterplans.
Don’t paraphrase, don’t rehilight.
I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.
Oppression/Death Good Arguments (or impact turns)
I will not vote on this. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted "on the flow" and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run these arguments in front of me unless you want a loss, 20 speaks each, and the round to end early. They're not good education, they actively create an unsafe space, and they're often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.
(This includes Spark but usually doesn't include Dedev).
Better safe than sorry, I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience of being triggered.
they're dumb, shouldn't be used as a tiebreaker, and mine skew high
Backup of this paradigm
I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.
I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.
If you cannot talk both clearly and fast at the same time, then I would prefer you to slow down and speak clearly. I will remind you at the beginning of the debate and I will ask you to slow down if you are going too fast to a point that it is hard to get your points. But I will only remind you once during the debate. If there is no improvement, I won't give you more than 27 speaker points simply because it would be very hard to understand you.
Be respectful to your opponents and the judge during the debate. Disrespectful words or attitude will cost you speaker points.
I am open to different types of arguments, but I like arguments that are well-structured and developed with clear logic.
I was an active competitor in HS and college. I currently coach Newport HS.
I do have my Ph.D. in Composition and Rhetoric, so I can follow your logic, and if you choose theory, I have a VERY high bar.
As far as spreading, I do not like it. I have a hearing impairment - and this online environment and spreading can make following you difficult. I can only judge what I am able to hear. I will ask you to slow down if it is too fast or unclear the first time. If you start "super spreading" I will not give you more than 27 speaker points, because the speed truly detracts from the art of speaking.
Make sure to stay respectful to your competitor, as well as me. Disrespectful words or attitudes will result in a lower score.
I like arguments that have a clear value asserted and pursued. The more sign-posting and off-clock road maps the better. Also, I love to hear the voters at the end.
I am open to many types of arguments - but make sure you let me what criteria to judge the round - and how you fulfilled it. That is your responsibility as a debater- not mine as a judge.
I am a lay judge. I would really like to see the second speaker to give me voters and explain to me why they should win the round. I would also links being supported by evidence. I would like debaters to be respectful towards eachother or I will be docking speaker points. Carry your relevant cards and arguements throughout the whole debate. I would also like to see impacts clearly being stated so that I can flow effiecently. Because I am a lay judge I would prefer arguments to be read slowly so that I can efficenetly flow arguments.
I am primarily a communications judge and vote based on the debater's overall argumentation and persuasiveness. Be aware that I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it difficult or impossible to understand speech that is significantly faster than conversational speed. If requested, I am happy to let the speaker know when they are going too fast through a hand gesture.
I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability.
Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.
Speak slowly and clearly. Signpost your speeches.
I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone who's giving a speech off. I will cut them off if they keep talking for way too long.
I stop listening when you go over time.
I prefer impacts with a clear link chain over world war three/extinction/nuclear war impacts. Don't sacrifice logic for magnitude. PLEASE.
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
- 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.email@example.com
- 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 Coach 9 years.
If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, firstname.lastname@example.org, 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.
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.
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.
Judging for over fifty years in CX LD and Pufo I am strictly a tabula rasa judge. Dont mind speed. If debater is too fast, I put down my pen.
I value communication and speaking skills - push the narrative. I will vote for the debater who best presents their arguments. I do not have experience with these "new" progress arguments that debate is becoming - I am a traditionalist.
If you're wondering, yes, add me to the email chain:email@example.com
Some other things: