Anderson Debate Paradigm

4 years NFA-LD.

please include on speechdrop or file share of choice

Offense/Defense Paradigm

Fine with speed.

Theory:

Will vote on potential abuse.

Condo- I personally think the negative should be allowed as many counterplans as the AFF has adv(s) + 1 (like an agent CP and *number of Advantages* CP(s). I’ll have a very low threshold on condo bad theory if more that are run. To me, at the end of the round only one counterplan should be gone for/squo defended. I don't want to kick an alt for you and vote for the status quo. If the AFF wins that condo is bad then I’d vote aff. If you outtech the AFF on why multiple counterplans are good, then I won’t vote on condo bad. I don’t think “drop the arg not the debater” is persuasive in condo theory debates.

Topicality- I default to competing interpretations, but I’ll vote on reasonability if it’s won. To me, limits is the most important standard, but I think precision or others can be persuasive if the T-interp creates an undue burden for the AFF. The AFF rebuttal would ideally explain why the AFF is a fair parametrization of the resolution and how the AFFs justified are good for x,y,z theoretical reason(s).

SPEC Args- I think most of these are just defensive solvency arguments.

RVI's- no thanks.

Disclosure- I would vote on disclosure theory against either negs/affs. I do not think new affs need to be disclosed. Otherwise, If you’ve done goofed and haven’t disclosed, then you should read a counterinterpretation as to why you shouldn’t have to disclose for X,Y,Z reason and then win offense in favor of that interp. i.e. “Debaters don’t have to disclose if the positions they read are on their team’s wiki/until after the tournament is over” or something like that. Still probably an uphill battle, but if the other debater isn’t that good on the disclosure theory collapse then you could still win the round.

I could vote on Framework against Ks/K AFFs, provided the debater actually wins the FW flow. If the negative is just “They don’t defend the resolution and that’s against the rules,” that's not very persuasive. To me, FW debate is about why limits are good vs why the inclusion of the AFF and the AFFs justified by the AFF’s interp are necessary for X,Y,Z reason.

K

I’d like to know why the worldview promoted by other debater is wrong (link work), why it’s important to reject/stop that kind of thinking (impact work), and how the alternative in some way resolves that worldview.

CP

I’m interested in the extent to which the CP solves the AFF and if an accompanying DA/other source of offense is a bigger deal than any potential solvency deficits/turns on the counterplan.

DA

PTX-Not super persuaded by “my card is from the next day” arguments on uniqueness. I find warrant comparison between the cards on why X,Y,Z political thing will/will not happen to be more persuasive than spamming three UNQ/nonunq cards.

Impact Turns: They often seem strategic to me.

About me: I began coaching high school debate in the US in 2017, after coaching 2 years in Japan. In that time I have judged PF and LD debate from local novice rounds up to the final round of LD at NCFL Grand Nationals. While not a high school debater myself, I learned the value of debate in college, where I publicly debated my thesis on a potential war in Iraq (this was shortly before the 2nd war). A poll of the lay audience suggested that I "won" on my solid arguments, evidence and impacts... But the poll also showed the majority disagreed with my proposed course of action. So could that really be considered a "win"? Turns out, I had barely touched an underlying value debate that neither I nor the lay audience had recognized was needed. This is just one reason I find great value in both impact-oriented PF and value-oriented LD debate (the two styles I have most experience coaching and judging). Below are things I value when judging a round.

What I value as a judge:

Do the most important work for me. I expect to debaters to do the core work of linking claims to evidence to framework, etc., highlighting key points of clash, and weighing. If reasoning seems to be vague or missing, I will not fill it in for you. For example, don't tell me to cross-apply an argument and assume that I will know how you expect me to cross-apply it--explain how it applies and why it matters.

Speak so I can flow. If debaters speak too fast or use too much jargon, I cannot flow it. When I make the final decision, I refer to my flow. You want your arguments to be on my flow! PF is aimed at educating the public, so make sure a layman can follow along. Even LD should be flowable for opponents and judges. There is no excuse for obfuscation.

Be clear and concise. Use signposts to refer to framework, contentions and sub-points. If a debater has to speak fast to fit all the arguments in, they likely have not distilled their speeches down to the most critical issues. Puns are fun, but my RFD is based on argumentative powers, not added "flowers".

Use Cross-Ex/Crossfire to clarify. Ask questions to reveal and clarify key issues, and answer opponents' questions in good faith. Be sure that both sides get the opportunity clarify the key issues. CX is not an opportunity for one side to extend its own points according to its own prerogative. I frown upon cases that blatantly expect Side A to use their CX time so that Side B can finish laying out a case that Side B couldn't fit within their own allotted time.

Maintain decorum. Be careful not to lose temper in the heat of the round. Do not abuse CX by excessively cutting off or talking over the opposing team. Avoid gestures and comments that would be considered rude in an academic or professional setting. I may down-vote teams that break these rules.

Don't linger on rule violations. I do appreciate teams letting me know when they think an opponent has violated the rules, but don't spend too much time on it. Summarize how the rules appear to have been violated and then move on. Lingering too long on a rule violation runs the risk of leaving other important issues unaddressed, which I may weigh more heavily than the perceived violation.

I'm a judge from a very traditional circuit and thus that's gonna be my preference for debate. I'll go into more specific details below.

Speed - Please don't spread. I'm fine with a debater's pace, as long as it's comprehensible. If you do have to spread, please share your doc and analytics on the email chain.

Framework - I understand the basics of framework debate. If you have a complex/unique framework please elaborate. As for addressing, go into however much detail you deem necessary. When addressing, tell me why your framework is important, outweighs, or a pre-req to your opponent's.

CX - I allow answers to go over time. This goes with 2 ideas. 1, please finish asking the question by end of time. 2, please don't abuse this regulation. I won't flow cross, but using answers in rebuttal will certainly strengthen it.

CPs - A fan of counterplans. If you are going to run one, please abide by the rules of the circuit. Also, make sure to establish mutual exclusivity/competition and solvency.

PICs - Please don't run one.

T - Please don't run T shells.

Ks - Please don't run one. I can almost guarantee that I won't fully understand it. Also, odds are this goes hand in hand with spreading, please reference the speed section.

Email - Please add me to the email chain if there is one. carolynvgeruc@outlook.com

Experience:

I'm a former trinity high school debater and have experience in both pf and ld. My freshman year I did pf and was decently successful with it and I have a thorough understanding of the event. My sophomore year on I've done LD and been decently successful having qualified to go to nationals and acquiring several pieces of hardware. I Primarily debated traditional; however, I have some progressive experience.

PF

PF Framework philosophy

My philosophy on PF debate is that since it is supposed to be layperson debate I will judge using util unless other framework arguments are brought to the table. If a framework is part of the debate I will judge the round solely based on who best fulfills the winning framework. This means two things, first, if your opponent argues for a framework it is important that you actively try and counter it arguing why I should pref your sides framework or if you don't advocate for one why I should pref util. Second, it is key that in your final focus you don't just tell me why you win under your framework, but also in case you lose framework debate tell me why you win under your opponent's framework.

PF Spreading

Don't spread if you do and your opponent doesn't YOU WILL LOSE. When you are spreading I will set my pen down, stop flowing, cross my arms, and look very unhappy you don't need to apologize simply slow down and I will start flowing again. It is key to keep me flowing because if something's not on my flow it didn't happen. Basically, if you talk too fast I won't flow it meaning I won't weigh anything you say causing you to inevitably lose the round.

PF Automatic Losses

If you run sexism/racism good, climate change is fake, a K, role of the ballot or anything that promotes structural violence you will automatically lose and get the lowest possible speaks.

PF General

-I will flow impact turns to your side, so make sure to argue them they will help substantially

-If you don't extend an argument into Summary of Final Focus it didn't happen and I won't weigh it.(btw just saying extend contention 2 doesn't count as extending an argument you need to give a brief explanation and list impacts for me to weigh it)

-I will try to stay unbiased, but that is simply impossible to fully complete so FYI I am liberal.

-Unless you run a constitutionality framework I don't care about constitutionality arguments because they don't link to util.

-Logic > Cards If something isn't logical I don't care what card you have.(Of course, cards are still important but use cards to back up your logic, not as logic)

-There is also an optional tick tack toe matchup where, if both teams agree, you can play tick tack toe first to 5 wins and that will decide the round (winning team gets 30s for speaks).

LD

LD Framework

I will judge using util unless other v/vc arguments are brought to the table. If a framework is part of the debate I will judge the round solely based on who best fulfills the winning framework. This means two things, first, if your opponent argues for a framework it is important that you actively try and counter it arguing why I should pref your sides framework. Second, it is key that in your final speech you don't just tell me why you win under your framework, but also in case you lose framework debate tell me why you win under your opponent's framework.

LD Spreading

Idc if you spread as long as your opponent doesn't either. If you do and your opponent doesn't consent YOU WILL LOSE. I will call clear and your opponent may as well. If I'm calling cleat then I can't understand well enough to flow, it is key to keep me flowing because if something's not on my flow it didn't happen. Basically, if you are unclear I won't flow it meaning I won't weigh anything you say causing you to inevitably lose the round.

LD Rules in my room

-IDC if you run a CP or Plan just prep for theory

-Don't run Parallel values it's against the rules bud

-Don't read new arguments in the 2AR smh you should know this

-Don't fake evidence duh

LD Automatic Losses

If you run sexism/racism good, climate change is fake, or anything that promotes structural violence you will automatically lose and get the low speaks.

LD General

-I will flow impact turns to your side, so make sure to argue them they will help substantially

-If you don't extend an argument into your final speech it didn't happen and I won't weigh it. (btw just saying extend contention 2 doesn't count as extending an argument you need to give a brief explanation and list impacts for me to weigh it)

-I will try to stay unbiased, but that is simply impossible to fully complete so FYI I am liberal.

-Unless you run a constitutionality framework I don't care about constitutionality arguments.

-Logic > Cards If something isn't logical I don't care what card you have. (Of course, cards are still important but use cards to back up your logic, not as logic)

-There is also an optional tick tack toe matchup where, if both teams agree, you can play tick tack toe first to 5 wins and that will decide the round (winning team gets 30 for speaks).

Policy

If I'm judging your policy round I'm sorry I will be incredibly confused because at that point I'm a lay judge so just keep it slow and simple. :)

As a judge in this public forum debate, I seek three important things. First, keep it simple and clear when you talk. Don't use fancy words that make things confusing. I want everyone, including me, to understand your points easily.

Second, I like to see a good back-and-forth, where you respond to what the other team says. It's not just about saying your own thing; it's about clashing with the other side's ideas. Make sure you're talking directly to each other's points.

Lastly, stick to the main topic. Don't go off on unrelated stuff. Keep your arguments connected to what we're here to discuss. Doing these things'll make the debate interesting and easy to follow, which is what I'm looking for as a judge in this tournament.

I always try to make my decision based on debaters performance without my personal opinions involved. The debaters performance will be graded per clearly organized contentions, persuasive arguments, good cross exam performance, and convincing presentation.

Please speak not too fast, watch your time, and show respects to your opponents.

Hope everyone enjoys the events.

just be nice :)

My Paradigm:

Parent Judge

Background: Mechanical Engineering; Marketing Management; Data Architecture in Business/Data Analytics

I Look for these qualities among Debaters:

1. Factual Evidence in Speech, well-supported arguments
2. Mutual Respect for one another;
1. respectful interruption on cross-examination is a skill every debater must have
3. Staying in the context of the resolution
1. if argument seems far-fetched, there must be a clear and defined link between the argument and your side of the resolution.
4. Proper time management
1. line-by-line analysis and extending arguments
2. bring closure for arguments/summarize

I have been coaching Speech & Debate for the past 20 years. I was a competitor for all 4 years of my high school career. I've judged numerous local, regional, state, and national tournaments. The highlight of my judging career came at the 2020 NSDA National Tournament when I was selected to judge Lincoln-Douglas Finals. When it comes to levels of debate, I've seen them all. Below are my event-specific areas of focus that I suggest debaters in the rounds that I judge should consider (but I'm open to whatever you feel works best for you...these are simply my preferences in round).

General notes:

Speed is a factor in every round that I judge. If you spread or speak at a rate in which I would have to read your case on paper to understand what your argument is you will not win a round with me. Delivery matters but so does content. Off-the-wall kritiks I am not a fan of, either. Whatever your position is, it must be logical.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Frameworks are a must. Voters are a must. Go down the flow - stay in order - don't deviate and make your arguments clear at all times. Don't waste time in-round ever. Definitely do not spread...Lincoln-Douglas is meant to be spoken well, not fast (some speed is okay, but nothing excessive). Remember content is good but delivery of the content well is also important. This is the way.

Policy:

The biggest thing I look for in policy is consistency. I am not a fan of kritiks, out-there cases as the Neg, etc. For the round I much prefer standard policy debate. Plans and counter-plans are a must. Go down the flow. Do not spread. Make the round friendly for both teams. Keep track of arguments won on both sides and give me a good crystallization at the end of your final rebuttals. Do not spread. Did I say not to spread? In case I didn't, don't spread...just don't. To make it clearer, spreading = I'm not a fan.

Public Forum:

Speak at a good rate of speed (fast is okay but you absolutely should not spread in PF). Be civil at all times. Do not be condescending unless you want to be marked down severely for it (or possibly lose a round). Be professional in crossfire & grand crossfire. Do not waste excessive amounts of time calling for cards (it's easy to try to be abusive with prep time but I am not the judge to try that with because I am a fan of debating, not evidence scrutinizing so unless you can prove something definitive by calling a card, don't waste too much of our time in-round doing so). Overall, be kind to each other and have a good debate and all will be well. I have spoken.

If competitors are doing an email chain for evidence; Sanchez-villa@trinityrocks.com

Competed in the Louisville, Kentucky Circuit in high school for three years. Graduated with a major in Political Science from the University of Louisville. I am an assistant coach of Trinity High School for the Speech & Debate team and have held that role for four years now. I say this to highlight that I have years of experience in this event and am familiar with many debate styles, philosophies, frameworks and am aware of changing trends in the debate world, that being said Debate is an educational tool and a time for students to practice analytical thinking and persuasive skills in a unique environment unlike school, so please do not spread at a rate that is so fast that it can never be repeated in a public environment, dont go so fast that the only way to flow is off a speech doc because I will ignore it. Evidence calling is a new thing with the advent of technology post-covid but do not make the evidence calling period so long that it delays the debate and ends up being wasted, call for cards that matter to the judge, not your team. Great debate, for me, is one where both sides are understanding of what the other person's case is stating and evaluating and clashing at that crucial point. There are a lot of debates where people run past each others points and do not actually attack the meat of what is being debated causing me to weigh two worlds that have very little to differentiate from. Competitors should be critical of evidence (yes please do stake the round on thats not what your evidence says, and I will read evidence of contention if I believe there is merit to it not claiming what it means, bad card cutting happens to everyone) and claims being made and any connection that they do not make for me as a judge I will not flow. Make my decision for me with your final speech.

EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com

In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged deep outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.

Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better your structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot

- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like

- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.

- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.

- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"

- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.

- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.

- Not a fan of tricks

- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.

- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy

PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements

Updated 5/26/23

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

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

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

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

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

General Experience and Views

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

Congress

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

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

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

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

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

PF and LD

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

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

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