Washington Warrior Invite NIETOC Bid
2020 — Sioux Falls - Online, SD/US
LD Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a traditional LD judge. I prefer a strong value criteria debate. Contentions should support the link between your value criterion and the resolution. I vote first on the value criteria debate and second on the contention debate.
I love strong philosophical debates. LD is not policy or public forum. While the use of evidence is occasionally helpful, theoretical philosophical analysis is the best.
Voting: I walk into the room with a clear mind and conscious regardless of your previous performance. I recognize that I may have a personal preference for one side over the other. I will not use my own preference against the debate.
Ballots: I will never tell you exactly what you should've said to win the debate. Instead, I will direct you to a particular part of your flow. I believe students learn better when they have to determine their own faults. Also, it isn't fair for me to argue for the students at the end of the round. I don't want to give anyone a particular advantage over anyone else. As a result, my ballots are often vague with the exception of specific areas of the flow to examine. Also, I fill out my ballots as the round progresses. It is possible that I will note something that you end up answering during the debate. Rest assured, while I may not have noted on the ballot that I got it, it is likely on my flow if it was important enough for me to comment about on the ballot.
Prep time: I will always give 30 second signals during prep time. There is no need to ask. Prep time, unless otherwise noted by tournament officials, will begin once you are seated.
Case structure: I am fine with subpoints in contentions. However, if you choose to use subpoints, they should belong under the main point. A random grouping of contentions does nothing for the flow of the debate. I am not a fan of more than three subpoints under each contention.
I flow as much of the debate as I feel I need to. On closer debates, I flow word for word in cross-x.
Speed: Regardless of the type of debate, if I can't write fast enough to flow it, it is likely I won't be voting on it in the round. I prefer conversation paced speaking. Overloading your opponent with as many contentions as you can shows me that your case is too disconnected from the resolution.
Electronics: With the overwhelming presence of electronics in our world, it is increasingly common to see students with laptops in the debate. While I am resistant to this change, I am in no way opposed to the use of laptops in the round so long as students can speak clearly when delivering their speech. Additionally, I encourage students to time their own speeches during the debate so as to allot an appropriate amount of time to each of the burdens in a particular speech.
I do allow the use of cell phones as timers. However, if I see you doing anything on your phone that isn't related to the timer, you will receive an automatic loss. With the ability of cell phones to access the Internet, it gives students an unfair advantage. Phones need to be on silent, not vibrate.
Cross-x: Use your cross-x time wisely. Make sure you know where your questions are going. Do not be abusive during cross-x and do not let your opponent take over by adding more information than necessary to answer your question. Be courteous when you have to interrupt them to move on. Make your cross-x count by asking questions that add to your argument or poke holes in your opponent's argument.
Courtesy: Please be kind to each other and your judges in the round. Some tournaments require more formality than others. Recognize that all of us are there for you. It is paramount that students feel comfortable in the debate and always learn something from each round. Debates are so much better when students are relaxed and comfortable. (It's easier said than done.)
: My Credentials :] :
I debated LD all four years in South Dakota, debated policy for half a year, and debated PF for 2 tournaments.
: General Info for All :
For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 4. If you go faster as long as you are understandable and clear I won't get upset.
Don't be rude in round. If I see the debate turn into an attack on other opponents, I will vote you down. That is not the purpose of debate.
SIGNPOST. This is necessary for all types of debate I judge, greatly appreciated if I see clear signposting of points and arguments.
: LD :
I am pretty traditional, but if you debate circuit/policy arguments I will still vote for you as long as you make your arguments clear - if I'm judging you at a South Dakota tournament please avoid policy arguments :)
Need to see a value/criterion clash of some sort. That is a big factor in my decision and who best links to morality.
I will vote on line by line, but for the last Affirmative speech I prefer hearing Points of Crystallization or clear Voters. Tell me exactly why you win.
: PF :
As long as you give straight forward explanations of your points and arguments, you should be good. Don't give 'fluff' information, I can tell if you are not responding to an argument or an opponent's point.
Give me main Voters during your summary and final focus (this should be self explanatory but sometimes people don't do this).
: Policy :
I know the layout and arguments, but I am not well versed in critiks or higher level tech arguments. I have a very basic understanding of when I debated it my freshman year. However, if you make arguments clear I will still vote on them.
For world schools debate, I like to hear both an ideal and realistic approach to a motion. I prefer analysis over examples. As the debate moves on, ensure that you are building on top of your arguments as you defend them. I do flow the round though it is the big ideas and arguments with their corresponding analysis and details, not every nitty, gritty detail. Additionally, if an argument is presented but does not apply to the other teams argument or even to the round, I won't be writing it down. If there are any questions, just let me know before round and I would be happy to answer them.
For Public Forum: I'm a traditional, slower speaking public forum judge. I vote on the contention debate. Focus more on the logic and analysis argument. Don't use abusive definitions, and be rude or condescending at your own peril.
For Lincoln-Douglass: I largely focus on the value/criterion debate when voting, but if the debate is centered on contentions that is subject to adjust. Again, please don't speed read, and respect your opponent
The debaters are responsible for identifying, defining, and establishing the key issues in the round. I will vote on whichever is the strongest-argued, and while that does sometimes come from a large spread of evidence, it is the interpretation and management of those issues that ought to determine which side outweighs the other.
For example: if both sides agree to debate which of them is more just, that refines the debate to a discussion of that metric. Each can determine how they get to "more" in their own way, but that can happen along a multitude of approaches as magnitude and volume are not the same thing. Debaters should read the round attentively and be prepared to follow the arguments, gaining offense along the way while not leaving arguments available for opponent' extensions.
Plan Text, Solvency or Kritik:
I'll hear just about any argument, but if the debater cannot tell me why that is the better option for framework arguments, I'll default to value and criteria. Clash should be clean and accurately reflect the burdens that each debater accepts after the first two speeches.
30: your round is suitable for a tournament final
29: your round is suitable for a tournament semifinal
28-27: your round is suitable for a winning record
I am a 10th and 12th grade English and composition teacher with a literature, rhetoric, and philosophy background. I have served as an LD coach from 2012-2016 and 2020-2021 and am very experienced with both the activity and its myriad topics.
My name is Kiah (she/her) and I graduated from Yankton High School (South Dakota) in 2021. I've mostly debated Lincoln-Douglas and Congress, but I have a tiny bit of Public Forum experience.
I debated traditional/lay debate throughout high school, so please keep that in mind going into round. I can handle speed to an extent. I'd love to be sent a speech doc at the beginning of rounds, then I can be extra-super sure of my flow. Email at bottom.
Here is a list of things that make me :))) in rounds
1. SIGNPOSTING!!! it helps me as a judge when i'm flowing, and it should help you in round. you absolutely will get docked if you don't signpost.
2. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech
3. warrants that you can actually explain tbh
4. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)
5. when you kick your F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)
6. in general if you teach me something that’s great!!!!
Here is a list of things that make me :'( in rounds
1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will:
a. drop kick u off the ballot
b. give u the lowest legal speaks
c. talk to ur coach
d. tell ur mom
2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. i will drop speaks if necessary.
3. don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it
ask me or email me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to :) email@example.com
I have been coaching debate since 1980. I was a policy debater in high school. I have coached policy debate, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Big Question and World Schools debate. I am also a congressional debate coach and speech coach.
It comes as no surprise based on my experience and age, that I am a traditional judge. I do keep up on current theory and practice, but do not agree with all of it. I am a traditional judge who believes that LDers need to present a value to support based in the resolution. A criterion is helpful if you want me to weigh the round in a certain way. Telling me you won your criterion so your opponent loses doesn't work for me, since I believe you win the round based on your value being upheld by voting affirmative or negative on the resolution. Telling me to weigh the round though using your criterion makes me very happy.
Voting Issues- I need these. I think debaters ought to tell me what to write on my flow and on my ballot.
Not a fan of K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's in LD. I know the reasons people do it. I don't think it belongs in this type of debate. I know debate is ever-evolving, but I believe we have different styles of debate and these don't belong here.
Flow: I was a policy debater. I flow most everything in the round.
Speed- The older I get the less I like speed. You will know if you are going too fast --- unless your head is buried in your laptop and you are not paying any attention to me. If I can't hear/understand it, I can't flow it. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count in the round.
Oral Comments- I don't give them.
I have coached Public Forum since it began. I have seen it change a bit, but I still believe it is rooted in discussion that includes evidence and clear points.
Flow: I flow.
Public forum is about finding the 2 or 3 major arguments that are supported in the round with evidence. The two final focus speeches should explain why your side is superior in the round.
I am not a fan of speed in the round. This is not policy-light. I do not listen to the poor arguments moving into the PF world.
I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.
Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.
Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.
I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.
Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.
Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.
Flashing- Make it quick.
Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.
I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.
I keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go 28 points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.
I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.
-I briefly debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for OG. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.
- I dislike "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments
- please limit your jargon or buzzwords, especially if you don't know what they mean or how to use them.
- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar so please explain it well.
-be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.
-please don't run a circular framework debate the whole time, i.e. "my framework is a pre-q to theirs". Focus on the contentions and analysis :)
-I love voters and impacts in the final speech
-Speed is okay, but not "policy fast."
Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot
1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.
2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.
3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.
4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.
5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.
6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.
7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.
I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round. I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution.
Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed
Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought
Evidence: Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required. A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments. However, factual arguments require evidence.
Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.
Plans and Counterplans: Not acceptable
Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks.
Experience: I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979. I was a high school policy debater. I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value. I have coached CEDA at the college level. I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.
Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: firstname.lastname@example.org
I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.
Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.
My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):
Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.
I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.
Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.
Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.
Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jackass to your opponent.
I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.
I am in my second season of judging LD, so I am still learning. I will admit that I am leaning on my Public Forum experience to a degree during the learning process. I have so far developed two rules about judging LD:
1.) Defend your value statement, especially if your opponent attacks it. If your opponent is able to negate your value statement, your case goes away and it becomes extremely difficult to win at that point.
2.) If you and your opponent agree upon or merge your value statements and your criterion, then to me it becomes a one-on-one PF round.
PUBLIC FORUM - READ TO THE END FOR AN UPDATE ON THE FEBRUARY 2021 TOPIC.
The best thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it, and the worst thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it. If you don't read this before a round, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DAYS OF ONLINE DEBATE, don't complain to your coach about what is said on my ballot after you lose.
How I vote/Framework
You can present your framework if you want, but I really don't pay any attention to it, especially with resolutions that are Yes/No. I am more interested in hearing the contents of your case, and I don't start flowing until I hear you say "Contention 1". I vote based on the cases, their contents, the attacks made on the cases and the responses to those attacks. Whoever has the majority of their case left standing at the end of the round wins. I value evidence over opinion, but not exclusively so. If you are presenting a morality-based case, you do so at your peril. It is my opinion that morality arguments are best done in LD. If you present a morality-based case AND you tell me I'm immoral if I vote you down, you are officially done at that point (it's happened, that's why it's included).
First and foremost, I expect professional conduct during the entirety of the round. While I haven’t yet decided a round based on arrogance, rudeness or condescension, I also have no qualms awarding a low-point win if the tournament rules allow.
Case speakers – I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea of who has to prove what during a debate round, especially toward the end of the month. Therefore, I don’t want to hear the Webster definition of 3 or 4 of the words in the resolution unless your definition differs from your opponent's. You may present framework if you want, but refer to the above as to how I treat it. As stated above in "How I vote", I very rarely start flowing until I hear "Our first contention is...…"
Rebuttal speakers – I value your responses to your opponent’s case more than I do getting back to your own, especially if all you’re doing is re-reading it. In addition, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE ATTACKING YOUR OPPONENT'S CASE OR ARE SUPPLEMENTING YOUR OWN WITH WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING. If you don't, it doesn't get flowed, and what doesn't get flowed doesn't get judged. I also like rebuttal speakers who are skilled enough to be able to attack their opponent’s rebuttal if you are speaking second. Finally, be very careful if you're attacking your opponent's case with points from your own. If your attack point gets damaged or negated, the opponents points you attacked will more than likely pull through intact.
Crossfire – It is very difficult to win a round during crossfire, but it is very easy to lose a round during crossfire. I’ll let you interpret that however you want. I consider CX to be for my benefit, not yours. I'm not real crazy about interruptions or talking over one another. Let your opponent finish an answer before you ask a follow-up question. I do reserve the right (and I have done it) to cut off a CX round if all you're doing is continuing the debate rather than doing Q&A. My rule at the buzzer - an answer may finish, a question may not.
Summary - The third minute of summary that was added last year has been interesting in how teams have approached it. I will say this: If you are speaking first, you can go back and attack your opponent's rebuttal, but don't spend more than 90-seconds on it. If you spend the entire time in attack, I'm going to assume you think you're losing. You should be introducing voters and giving me your introductory analysis of how the round is going.
Final Focus – You should be telling me why you won the round. I do not object if you figuratively take me by the hand and walk me through your analysis of how the round went. If you spend more than half your time continuing to attack your opponent's case, I will again assume that you're not confident about the success of your own.
As far as speed goes, this is not policy. While I do flow with a spreadsheet on a laptop, there are even speeds that I can’t follow. If you see me put my hands behind my head, you are talking too fast, and what does not get flowed does not get judged. Please slow down a notch when presenting main points and sub points.
FEBRUARY 2021 TOPIC - A few things for consideration: First, I will listen to evidence that refers to Africa as a whole, but you need to be able to how your evidence impacts West Africa in particular. Next, evidence about individual countries in the region is good, but I would prefer to hear multiple examples. Finally, if you're going to do any rural vs urban comparisons, it needs to relate to the resolution.
Questions? Feel free to send an email to either email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org