Washington Warrior Invite NIETOC Bid
2020 — Sioux Falls - Online, SD/US
LD Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a traditional Lincoln-Douglas judge. In a debate round, I want to see strong links in the contention debate that ultimately support the value/criterion debate however, the contention debate is less important to me than the overall value/criterion debate.
FLOWING--If you think your case is good enough, you shouldn't need to spread or attempt to spread. Not only does this take away from the round, it begins to lose its educational value if you're just trying to put so much information out there that your opponent can't possibly talk about all of your points. I want you to tell me what I need to know to understand how your case wins. I will not flow if I can't understand what you are saying because you're attempting to bombard your opponent.
VALUE/CRITERIA--A value is something of moral worth that we should strive for and we can achieve it through the lens of your criterion. Your contentions should show me how we can make that happen within the boundaries of the resolution.
PRECONCEIVED PERSPECTIVES--I value my ability to consider every issue from both sides regardless of my personal views. I couldn't care less what side of any issue you're on so long as you can show me through the debate why you're right.
TIMING--The timer for prep time begins when you sit. It will stop once you stand up. I will do my best to give you thirty-second reminders doing prep time.
USE OF ELECTRONICS--In today's world it's hard to limit students on the use of their electronic devices. Students are expected to abide by all tournament rules regarding the use of electronic devices. If I see a debater attempting to use an electronic device for an inappropriate purpose such as communication during a round, I do not treat that violation lightly and it will be reported to tournament officials.
As with all school events, nothing is more important than the educational skills learned through programs like speech and debate. Please be cognizant that while it is fun to win, I do not consider use of unsportsmanlike maneuvers to be worthwhile to the educational purpose of speech and debate. I expect all students to treat each other with respect despite opposing viewpoints.
: My Credentials :] :
I debated LD all four years in South Dakota. I have judged LD and PF now for 4 years.
: General Info for All :
For speed, on a scale of 1(slow)-10(fast) I sit at a 5. 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.
Lincoln Douglas Debate:
If I am unable to understand what you are saying, especially when you are reading cards, I am not going to flow it. In my opinion, both your opponent and myself need to be able to understand what you and your cards are saying in order for there to be a debate. So if you want to speak fast, then you are most likely not gonna get my vote.
I consider framework as a way to view the round. When debating framework, I prefer arguments that pertain to the context of the resolution more so to the arguments against the actual theory. For example, there is a common card to use against KCI that talk about how Kant does not allow for rebellion. However, in the context of space appropriation, rebellions against the government are not topical (or at least of what I have seen) and therefore is not really an argument against KCI in the context of the resolution.
I don't have a preference of what you run for contentions but make sure it makes sense, is clear, and that it aligns with your framework. I weigh analysis more than examples.
Make sure to weigh your points under the framework and weigh frameworks in both a vacuum and in the context of the debate.
In the introduction, make sure you filter to your question just like you do when writing a paper. The introduction should provide the general background necessary to understand your speech and also establishes why your topic/issue is important. The introduction should be no more than 1:00-1:15; I more curious about your answer to the question as well as how your analysis supports your arguments than an introduction.
Make sure your main points are clear and distinct. Make sure your presentation in each point is logical and clear in reaching your argument. Make sure your points answer the question as it is worded. If you question has to do if so and so can do something, then you best talk about if they can and not about if they should or would.
Use sources for a purpose and properly introduce them. For citing sources, I expect publisher, date (not just the year or time reference like just last week), and realistically you should be citing the author as you do when writing a paper. After citing your sources, make sure to provide analysis and that the analysis is new. You should not be saying the same thing, in different words, as you made your point and need to move on.
Make sure to have transitions like you do when writing a paper. That is there, should be topic sentence and a concluding sentence that transitions your speech to your next main point.
Your conclusion should only be about 45 seconds and make sure to restate your question and a brief (one or two sentence) summary of each of your points.
"Slow Down" - me, on like 80% of ballots
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 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.
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 :) firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
LD: I lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.
In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.
At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.
PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.
I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.
Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters
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: email@example.com
Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.
PF - I dislike theory but I dislike paraphrasing even more. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important. Con probably doesn't have a burden to provide an alternative to diplomacy, but it does go a long way toward establishing uniqueness for any offense against diplomacy. "Diplomacy is worse than this specific/probable alternative" is a more compelling argument than "diplomacy is bad".
LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.
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 jerk to your opponent.
I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.
General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.
Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.
Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.
LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.
I am in my third 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 PF round.
PUBLIC FORUM - READ TO THE END FOR AN UPDATE ON THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 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 what has to be proven by whom during a debate round, especially toward the end of a topic period. 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.
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC - If you are going to run Climate Change on the Pro, or Remittances on the Con, you had better be able to connect it back to the resolution. If you don't, and your opponent argues that either of these points are non-resolutional, I will agree with them.
Questions? Feel free to send an email to either firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com