While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

"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

I was involved with debate in high school for two years where I completed in Public Forum debate and several speech events. I have spent the last 8 years working with various high schools with their programs, and judging at multitude of tournaments during those years. I have also been a tournament director for over 30 tournaments, and am currently an assistant coach at the school I teach at. I am a more traditional judge overall, but I have no issues with progressive and spreading as long as it is meaningful to the debate. I want clash between sides, and I want good coherent arguments with evidence and reason. Make sure you are directing your claims to the judge and that I understand what you are talking about. Organization is key for me and you should have and order to what you are saying. Impact calculus is the key thing for me overall though, tell me why your argument works, the probability, and the impact. Good luck to both sides.

Updated for NCFL.

Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.

I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:

1. Rule/Evidence Violations.

If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.

As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.

2. Being Offensive or Rude.

I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.

3. Pre-Fiat Impacts

Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.

4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts

Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.

Misc. Things:

- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.

- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.

- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.

- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).

- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)

PF:

- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.

- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.

- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.

- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.

- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.

LD:

- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.

- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.

Policy:

- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.

- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.

- Tag team cross is fine.

- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).

- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.

Congress:

- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.

- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.

25 years head debate coach; 4 yrs Policy/Congress/IE competitor + 1 yr NDT/CEDA

Policy: Default to standard impact calculus; ideal round would involve a single topical policy proposal from the aff vs. a single alternative policy proposal from the neg. if you want me evaluating non-plan arguments I need to be given a well-explained reason why that's a better use of my ballot than the endorsement of a good policy option. Most of the time tech > truth. If you make the round a toxic environment for me or for your opponents I may intervene to vote against you. That is NOT an invitation for you to complain in your speeches about your opponents' behavior. It is a warning that I don't like bullies, blowhards, and people who treat the activity as an arena in which to Get Their Alpha On, or as a stick with which to clobber their cultural/political outgroup of choice. I am capable of speed up to the level of a moderate KS varsity round or slow circuit round; I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

LD: I'm not what you'd call prog. The wording of the resolution, and specifically the evaluative term, dictates my judging philosophy--basically, you win by engaging the resolution as written and proving your side is true. Many recent LD topics have been phrased as straight-up policy topics--if you can convince me that the resolution you're debating is one of those, then the full range of policy strategies become legit. For more traditionally worded resolutions, I am far more likely to be persuaded by whole-res justifications as opposed to situational ones. If you win the V/C debate, all aff and neg impacts are filtered through your V/C, so spending time there can be strategically useful. I'm persuadable on util good/bad, and generally persuadable on theory, provided your "theory" argument doesn't render the resolution undebatable or absurd. I have not yet heard a LD round that was too fast for me, but bear in mind I am a middle-aged man who judges at the regional level; I am not at the cutting edge of this activity. I will give "clear" calls if I need more clarity and won't vote for what I can't flow.

Congress: redundant debate is bad. Direct responses to preceding speakers are good. Unkindness to other competitors is very very bad indeed. Skilled POs tend to place very high in my rankings.

As a judge I come into the room the least educated person in the room- waiting to be informed and swayed. In LD debate, fiat in an important principle for me- I want to hear the argument for WHY something should be done- not if it CAN be done nor do I care about a plan or counter-plan. Evidence and definitions are also key and something I listen for in making my decision.

FIAT

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

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

I did PF in high school, graduated in 2019. I was assistant coach at Salem Hills for a year, but it's been a while since I've been in the debate realm. I should be able to hold my own just fine in any round, but let me know if you have any specific questions about my paradigms.

Good luck in all your rounds!!!

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

• Tech > truth
• I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
• Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
• You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
• I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
• Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.
• I will not evaluate tricks.
• Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
• I like clear judge instruction.

I've been judging for more than 12 years now. I've been helping to coach for more than 3 years. I competed in speech and debate in high school. I know how to do all of the events.

Policy: I very much dislike when the debate goes off into theory arguments for policy. Most of the time they aren't even actual arguments that have been fully formed with all the necessary attributes. Those arguments will be crossed out on my flow. If you can't fully form the argument and have all the parts to it then why should I care to have it as a voting issue? I don't mind reasonable speed. If you breathe anywhere where there isn't punctuation then I will completely cross that card/argument from my flow. That is my biggest annoyance with speed. I lean very strongly towards Policy maker but I'm a stock coms judge. I will always weigh the arguments with stock issues more heavily than I will the other issues. Topicality will be weighed over it when it's actually reasonable. I want a clear shift of policy with the Aff case. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

LD: I very much love the Value and Criterion debate. I love traditional debate. I HATE progressive debate you lose a lot of the skills you would normally learn and gain weak skills instead. Give me clear reasons why we should weight the round off of your Value. Both logic and evidence based arguments have their place in this debate. Make sure you use them accordingly. I will drop the entire argument you're making if you breathe where there isn't any punctuation. I'm fine with reasonable speed. IF YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS AN ISSUE THAT THEY DEFINITELY HAVE I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN FOR WHINING, INCOMPETENT FLOWING, AND BEING ANNOYING!

SPEECH:

So, I WILL NOT, emphasis on the NOT, judge a piece that has, or should have, a trigger warning in it. I will leave the round immediately if someone tries to run one in my round. Pieces can be very good without getting to the point where there needs to be a trigger warning. I will not judge those garbage pieces. Increase your quality of speeches by getting rid of those.

1. Please be polite/respectful to your opponents in round. You don’t earn any favors by being rude.
2. I did debate in high school so I know how important the flow is. However, after judging for a few years I realized it’s easier for me to leave you real time comments on your ballots rather than spend the whole round tracking your flow and frantically try to write my comments after. This doesn’t mean I don’t care about flow! I’m still following along even if I’m not writing it down. Make sure you’re telling me what on the flow I need to pay attention to.
3. I will not provide time. I think it’s actually better for you to keep track of your own time and will help you feel more confident in the round! But mostly, it’s just too hard for me to provide good thought out comments on your ballot and track the timer. With this I don’t really care about grace periods. Finish your thoughts and be done.
4. I’m fine with whatever speed you use. Just remember, if your opponent can’t understand you, the whole round is going to be a mess for both parties. That makes it hard for me to leave good comments if there’s nothing good to leave them on, you know?
5. I don’t judge on crossfire so you don’t need to impress me there! However, I am in the room so my first point still stands. Be aggressive! I don’t care. Being rude probably won’t get you any more answers though.
6. Most importantly, as absolutely cliche as it is, just have fun! You and me probably won’t remember a single thing you said after the 1 hour period we spend together, so don’t take it too seriously!

That’s it! If you have any questions for me asking them right after round when the whole thing is fresh in my brain is usually best, but feel free to email me too! (Or I guess you can approach me in that weird cautious walk like I’m some scared endangered animal wandering the hallways and ask your questions!)

Email: makayla.mail@gmail.com

Clarity is far more important than speed. I write slower than you talk, so spreading is likely to result in me missing some points, and I can only judge on what I can record.

Theory and k's are technically acceptable, but I would prefer you actually debated the topic on its merits. It makes for a more interesting round.

I will judge only what you actually argue. Claims made, so long as they aren't obviously false, will be accepted as true until the other team challenges them.

If you're going to link to an annihilation scenario, your link needs to be super strong. Everything doesn't result in nuclear war.

I am thinking impact calc the whole time you're talking. Explain the significance of each of your points and be very clear about why it weighs out in your favor. I will reward this.

Civility is of the utmost importance in a round. Any behaviors that demean or belittle your opponent will be reflected in your speaker points and possibly in my decision.

Have fun!

I was in debate for all of high school. I did policy for 1 year and LD for the rest. I loved them both but LD is my favorite. Unfortunately this combo has left me with an odd judging paradigm.

LD SPECIFIC:

Progressive cases- Because of my background in policy I can enjoy a progressive case WHEN IT IS DONE WELL! In LD you do not have as much time to establish the needed ground for a lot of K’s and other obscure arguments. Obviously you have to take the risk and be sure you can have the needed ground.

Solvency- No matter how traditional you are you still have to have solvency within your case. If the AFF provides a plantext and the argument against that is “this is LD and we don’t have to provide a plan”, the neg will likely lose. The NEG job is to say no to the AFF(as long as the plan is within reason).

Voters- Voters are one of the most important parts of your rebuttal. If you do not have voters I will assume that you do not care how the round ends and that everything should be weighed the exact same. This will not work out in your favor. Take at least a minute to explain why you should win. It shows an investment in the round and an actual desire to win.

Framework- Value and Value Criterion are what set LD debate apart. In a sense it is your opportunity to showcase knowledge and creativity. It is pretty easy to tell when someone put a lot of thought into their value and value criterion. If you value morality I will assume you are a boring debater and you will most likely not win the framework argument. LD is about morality, the whole goal is to prove morality. It is too vague and is already implied in the form of debate. I weigh heavily on this portion of the debate. Direct clash is good but if you and your opponent have the same framework you can still argue who better fits the framework. Do not just assume this doesn't matter because you have the same framing. Tell me how the debate should be interpreted, don't let me do that on my own.

Flowing- If you don’t flow I’m going to have a very hard time taking you seriously. Less than 10% of the population has a photographic memory so it’s not likely that that is you. Even if it is, you should still flow.

Speed- If you are spreading, you must also be clear! If you are unclear I will not be able to flow what you are saying and it will not help you in round. Slow down for taglines and anything of extreme importance.

GENERAL:

I think debate should be fun. I’m a fairly laid back judge who will vote on most anything as long as it is logical.

You should always be civil to your opponent- rip their case apart not them. Personal attacks are an absolute no. If a personal attack is made speaks will be dropped. I’m all for a super competitive clash filled debate as long as you also have good sportsmanship.

Cross counts for your speaks, not towards the win or loss.

I like to follow the rubric for judging. A newer judge, but lots of public speaking experience. Good luck!