I will judge based upon these 5 not distinct but interconnecting categories.

Presentation: Claim/Impact (power or influence, compassion, convince)

Argument: Evidence/Knowledge (No Spreading/Quality not Quantity)

Description: Delivery (No Spreading/ Logic)

Refutation: Responses/ Discreting the opposition

Structure: Team Balance

Chris Coovert,
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 26 years
Coached CX: 17: years

Coached PF: 20 years

Competed in LD: 4 years

Competed in NPDA: 2 years


LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.

I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.

As far as specific arguments go.

1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.

Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.

Public Forum Paradigm

I want to see clear arguments with warrants to back them up. I am ultimately going to vote on the arguments in the round not speaking ability. That said, speaking persuasively will never hurt you and might make your arguments seems stronger. Please do not lie about evidence or take it out of context.

CX Paradigm
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.

In general:
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.

I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

I am a parent judge. I have three years of experience in judging LD and this is my first year judging speech rounds as well. Either you will love or hate me depending on if I vote for you or not.

For LD-

I understand how plans/counterplans work but I would prefer rounds with less/no theory (K's especially).

Just because I am not a big fan of theory that does not mean I do not want you to stand up to your opponent if they are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I vote down to that kind of stuff.

Please do not spread!!!! Not only is it extremely hard to flow and understand but technical difficulties in an online debate setting make it much worse. You are welcome to speak fast though.

If you mention cheez-its - I will increase your speaker points as much I am allowed in Tabroom.

Overall- just have fun!

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

Background

he/him

uw'23

add me to the chain if u want @ fageeriomar@gmail.com

Be Kind :)

First and foremost, debate is an activity where at the end of the day, you are debating topics that influence real living people so understanding the weight of what you're saying is something that should go without saying. This activity is meant to be a safe environment where you can grow as a debater but also be inclusive to those who do this activity with you. I will not tolerate anyone who discriminates, offends, or is abusive to their opponent regardless of whether it was to "prove a point". Anyone who does this will drop instantly with very very low speaks ❤️

Each and every one of you has something valuable to contribute and no one should have the opportunity to minimize those contributions :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR:

take risks, have fun, and try your best!

all events //

larp >> th >> k & lit >>

weighing mech

impact calc

cp // remind me what the status of the cp is throughout the round

condo good

very high speaks if you make me laugh

signpost! :)

tricks are fine --> your burden to get it on my flow

theory --> reasonability > competing interps

drop arg > drop debater

preferences:

LD PARADIGM

speed// slow down on tags but be realistic with speed. I am not going to tell you to slow down, you should be able to assume that you need to if I am not flowing what you are saying. Also, online debate means dealing with mics so let's acknowledge that. Also, acknowledge who is in your judge panel. When you have parents, volunteer judges, and people with no experience judging and you decide to default to prog, that is horrible. Adjust to lay and win that way. This activity should be accessible to all judge ballots not just the ones you think are more experienced.

roadmap// off-times are dope after constructives if you are gonna collapse to any t's , da's, etc. —otherwise no need—. Usually I can navigate fine without em so they wont matter on my ballot but people with them can expect high speaks for organization :P Dont run what you think I want to hear because I dont really care as long as you make it digestible (again online means i need it to be understandable. Run whatever you are most comfortable with.

K// do it if you want but structure is pretty important here (ie. on my end your goal should be to concretely outline for me what is epistemologically / ont. wrong bad/violent/evil/idc about their case or how they are presenting their case / addressing the resolution) I guess this is usually done in peoples link and impact but I think the K's I vote on or find value are the ones that 1. clearly frame the round under their K (ie. what should the ROB be given the impact behind what your opp did that you see as inherently bad) and 2. outline for me the extent to which the ballot is an alt how it addresses some of your impacts there. Also, your tags best be very slow when introducing all of that (link,imp, alt, rob) lol.

TLDR: I don't resonate too much with K's because I feel like most people deviate from the actual abuse they are arguing on but if you do, just be really clear with what I said earlier I guess ( practical args on case will make it easier to sway me nevertheless!)

T// These annoy me sometimes bc they get messy at least where I have seen them. Similar standard as above, give me a comprehensive interp of the resolution, the stand. they violated I guess and in voters why I should care. Especially with everything being online, imma need this to be digestible when you're reading it as well! I usually default to reasonability unless opp offers a c.i in which case I will default to competing interps

another note: rvi's are cool and on t debate, 1ar's that collapse to them will more often than not pick up. i buy that winning a c.i is enough to win the round and rvi's are the only drop the debater arg i will probs ever buy.

tech > truth.

dont deviate entirely from case debate. if you read the tldr, you know i like larp debaters largely because thats what most people can do well and more comprehensively in a way that I can evaluate. Impact calc is still vital and the side that does the best job of winning on case flow will more often than not be the side that picks up a ballot (all of this include exceptions those being obv what I have talked about earlier).

voters!!!

CX

Respect your opponent!! You don't have to pretend to love them but respect everything they have to say :) You can be aggressive but don't be abusive (... they are different!). Concessions in cross should be on top case in the 1NC and 1AR

PF PARADIGM

*first time judging this topic (12/11-12/12)

fw in pf is dope imo. otherwise just weigh and we'll be chillin

I will vote purely off the flow. stop trying to extend deadweight args and just collapse to the ones your winning on and weigh. that tends to be the best strat to get my ballot bc it saves you time and makes the debate a lot less messy on the flow. I rarely call for evidence because defaulting to cards on an rfd is wack but if it ends up being something thats carrying you on the flow prepare for that.

summary // make it clear what arguments still matter in this round, which ones you're winning, and which they're losing. i would much rather see you collapse to the ones your winning here as opposed to spend hella time defending the ones you know you're losing.

ff// spend these few minutes with an overview, why you solve for any weighing mech / fw, and which arguments I need to vote on to make my ballot.

I dont want to hear cards in your ff, at this pt you should be focusing on what links, straight / solv turns, etc you have already made and telling me what you're winning and why those are my cleanest voting issues in the round.

I feel like a lot of the time in PF, teams are really hung up on empirics with like zero internal links--> so have those.

Voters are really important here! (Only args fully extended through ff and summary will be considered)

^this doesnt mean you necessarily need defense on every arg to extend every arg to win a round. I vote on collapsed args a lot!

Give me a standard to vote on. This should be clearly established on top case in your first constructives and ff and tell me why you solve :)

I rarely see prog in PF but surprise me if you want!

CONGRESS PARADIGM

tldr: content 3/4 speaking 1/4 , rehash is dis cos tan, i hold authorships to a higher burden because they dont have an opportunity to refute (authorship cx is the most important cx on my ballot usually for every bill)

solid impact turns in congress are like an automatic top 3 for me

crystalization speeches are dope (overview --> flow --> weigh :))

Jokes are great!! if you make me laugh that makes it more tolerable for me and you will stand out :) Keep in mind we do have to sit there for 3 hours+

**This event is called congressional debate. As often as it appears that people who do get ranked are great speakers, I will weigh content more regardless of how pretty you sound. Clarity is obviously important, but it is more beneficial to have clarity AND a comprehensive case

po's // generally will get ranked top 6 unless you make tons of errors. best po's are the one's that make me as a parli feel as if I could leave the room and never come back and everything would still feel the same. own the room. cross check what rules (nsda , wsfa, etc.) you're using and make sure the statutes actually exist (ie. the "no three aff speeches in a row" is a tradition more than it is actually documented in any rule book).

rehash // will automatically place you in the bottom half of my ranks at best (w/ exception to crystalizing)

If you repeat an argument that was just run in the speech before you, I will flow everything you say under that speaker and assume you did not give that point. The reason congress is rarely seen as the debate is that a lot of competitors try to go the easy route without contributing to the debate. If you do not have a new point, crystalize, tell me the most important args, give me missing links, weigh, and clear up any messiness in the debate. That in my opinion can actually end up being a better speech than most constructive ones.

Unique arguments are preferable but don't give me bad efficacy arguments w/ no int. links. (in other words, I am not gonna believe your card if u dont have a warrant).

evidence //

This is your opportunity to pretend like your source is doper than it actually is. Look up who wrote it and how they came to their conclusion (that adds to your warrant and makes your case more substantive) . I should be able to fact check you with the citation I hear even though I probably will not lol. I don't just want to hear what your evidence is but also why it is important i hear it. If there is an area in your argument that can be quantified, I want to see empirics.

impact calc//

Just mentioning what someone says and reading a card after is not a refutation. If you cant explain why their argument is uniquely bad, that is not a refutation. Reference other senators in the room but also make sure you are giving me material reasons

cx//

WA circuit doesn't do direct cross but I still weigh it in my rankings. Also, tbh it seems like people suddenly lose their hearing when the round starts

ie. "I did not understand/hear your question"

I can tell when someone is trying to avoid the question and that doesn't reflect positively in your ranks. If you do not know the answer to the question, I would much rather see you try to explain why that question is irrelevant or how regardless of the answer your case wins bc ____. Also please don't answer with " I do not see how that is relevant to my speech". You are debating on the bill either in support / against, just because you didn't directly mention it in your speech does not mean you are not capable of answering the question (After-all you only get 3 minutes).

Those who know their cards well in questioning and can respond with comprehensive answers are those who will get ranked high regardless of speeches. The #1 pref is making cx valuable. If your question doesn't move clash forward.. dont ask it :)

From the 2020-1 school year:

tl;dr:

LD: flow judge, but you can argue that stuff like CP's, neg fiat are illegit and that durable fiat is not realistic if there are too many actors. You'd need to tell me why of course and convince me. The val/crit debate determines how I evaluate the rest of the debate, and winning that debate just means I evaluate stuff as specified in the victorious val/crit. Also even though I'm a flow judge, that doesn't mean you're locked into line-by-line for every argument-- you can group stuff and some of the best LDers in my judgement are closer to the PF realm than the Policy realm in style.

PF: public forum is like a TV show, like the McLaughlin Group or CNN's Crossfire. The best PF judge is someone who doesn't understand debate, yet these days you have speed and framework in PF. If I saw speed or framework on the TV, I'd change the channel. When I see a PF debate without these things, my heart soars. But if your opponent makes a lot of points, how do you not get pulled into the speed and the mire? Although you should not neglect to answer the opponent's important points, when you get spread, the magic words from a persuasion perspective seem to me to be, "here's what's really important in this debate," or some variation thereof. As with many speech events, in Pufo fluency is also key to persuasion.

longer:

LD — flow judge. Two debates occur in parallel in every LD round: the value/criterion and the contention debate. Usually the winner is the debater who does the better job telling me why their contentions line up with the prevalent value/criterion in the round. I want to see this weighing underway by the NC and a tad in the 1AR so that both sides have time to rebut each other’s assertions.

One debater may attempt to spread the other in LD. When this happens, the other debater can agree to this kind of line-by-line debate by participating in it. The other debater may instead group arguments and bring the round back to a more ‘common-sense’ manner of argumentation. Most times this year I’ve found that when one debater starts with the line-by-line, the other goes along with it. I’ll evaluate such rounds in this way if there is no dissent in a particular round on it. But the other side of this coin is, neg sometimes just reads 10 esoteric arguments at speed. When this happens, if aff says something like “I didn’t understand that and I suspect you didn’t either,” aff is probably right. If LD is debated like Policy, neg just has the opportunity to get more ink on the flow and win 80% of the time. The preceding is more or less my own ROM of LD theory and arguments to the contrary are very unlikely to change it.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON LD:

If you run a val/crit that would make all aff or all neg cases under the current resolution illegit and this fact is pointed out (truthfully) to me, I am very likely to weight the fact that you did that against you for reasons of fairness and education.

Fiat means that we assume an Aff world and compare the aff world to the squo world. Thus, when we say fiat, we mean “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff; now, how would that be different that the squo?” It does not mean, “for the sake of argument, suppose we did the aff, the aff worked as planned, and the world was saved.” Fiat does not mean that political repercussions can’t happen. Fiat does not mean that solvency is assured. I already know what aff fiat means and theory arguments about it won’t persuade me— they have not once done so. Neg fiat, however, is another matter. Does it even exist? Are counterplans legit? I’m agnostic on this question currently.

If we are in a world where neg fiat exists, which I will assume (for now) if neither debater disputes it, the mere fact that a perm is logically possible is not enough for me to prefer the aff. If perms are permitted, then I consider that the aff’s advocacy has shifted from the plan to the perm, and I will vote based on whether the perm or the CP best achieves the prevalent val/crit. Let me give you a sense of what I mean by logical possibility. Many negs will say something like “we can’t do something and also do the opposite of something.” Uh, yes we can. I can dig a hole and fill it up again. I can attempt to dig a hole with one arm and refill the hole with my other arm. The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do that same thing (e.g. cops arguing over jurisdiction.) The Federal Government can do something with the states attempting to do the opposite (e.g. Oregon permits drugs while the Feds ban them; California has sanctuary cities while the Feds uphold contrary rules.) Someone can set a fire with one hand and also call the fire department. All these things I have stated are logical possibilities. Are any of them wise, in the sense of, is it wise to have different arms of the same government working at cross-purposes? No, I would say not. Would doing any of them be a waste and probably have terrible effects? Seems obvious that they would. Just don’t tell me that something is logically impossible when it is not.

Evidence in many areas of our lives is a good thing to consider. In certain areas of our lives, it may be the only important thing in determining what we should do. But this is not the case for all questions. In particular, evidence may not be salient on all questions of values. Let’s consider a topic that is not yet controversial but that we can imagine might become controversial: the eleventh amendment to the US constitution, which, according to wikipedia as of today, “restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.” Imagine a debate happening on whether this was right or wrong. One side says more or less, “It’s unjust that you can’t sue states. The judicial system is our recourse, and if states act wrongly, people, foreign or domestic, should be able to sue them.” The other side says, “Federal courts are not the only form of recourse. The Federal government can already sanction and impose restrictions on states, and additional methods to hold states accountable are not needed and would be disadvantageous. Also changing the constitution in this way would open the door to frivolous lawsuits which would hurt everyone. From a utilitarian standpoint, we should keep the 11th amendment as it is.” Now what if a third party came in and said, “Well, according to philosophy professors at Princeton, Yale, and Oxford, you should prefer utilitarianism over justice.” Well, that’s not really how debates on values work. You argue values via talking about why the values you advocate are good. Appeals to authority might work when the subject is something very complicated like molecular biology or quantum mechanics, but for questions of values, citing a source usually won’t work.

PF — The ideal public forum judge is someone who has never seen public forum before. Now, although I have seen it before, I have, and I believe the community has, an interest in keeping it true to its original form. This is the genesis of how I judge PF.

I was asked to write a PF paradigm, but I believe that PF judges should not have a paradigm. Bottom line, when I watch PF, I pretend that the debaters are on my TV and are trying to convince me of their point of view. If someone is trying to convince me of something, running theory or topically are not a good idea. A better idea is, if your opponent is discussing irrelevant things, remind the judge/audience what the debate is about and proceed to talk about it better.

If someone is trying to convince me of their point of view, saying “extend and cross-apply Johnson 2015, I already responded to that” is not going to convince me of anything. Instead, consider saying “as we have stated previously, and as underscored by Dr. Johnson…” and so on.

If someone trying to convince me starts talking very quickly, that does not get them very far. I’m not going to expect the other person to speak very quickly as well. Everyone has similar speech times, and a reply such as “my opponent mentioned many interesting details, but here’s what you really need to know…” will probably suffice.

Courtesy is of course important, but don’t spend to long with the ‘you ask a question first, oh thank you so much,’ game. Most rounds I’ve seen lately have been fine in this dimension, so you’ll probably do well too.

I’m not going to flow PF rounds. I will take notes to help my memory, but if you say, “extend point 3, subpoint b,” I’m not going to know what you mean.

The more you use debate to explain to regular people why issues matter to them in the real world, the more you’ll get out of debate in the long run, I feel confident. So, emerge from the cave of speed and jargon and gaze upon the sunlight of excellence!

Policy - I'm a deconstructionist judge.

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

TLDR: Substance first. Depth over Breadth. Speed mostly fine (Yes Clarity still matters -_-). K's n stuff fine. Not the biggest fan of T. Be organized.

I don't usually count flashing as prep unless it becomes a problem. Only ever had a problem in Policy and (funnily enough) Pufo rounds.

Email: graythesun@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him

Prep:

All Prep is running prep. I'm not setting a timer, I'm using a stopwatch for all prep. Watch your own time.

Flex-Prep is valid. As in, asking questions during Prep time. I prefer if Flex-prep is more used for clarifying arguments rather then finding tricky questions... you had your chance in CX.

Framework:

As a judge I really like framework, it tends to make for an easier decision. I.E. some arguments that are argued don't really fit within frameworks in round, and I can just drop them. If there are competing frameworks I expect you to debate them, and end up with one superseding the other. That being said... if you have the same or similar frameworks, unless you're gonna describe what the nuanced difference is and how that changes the valuation in round, it's almost better to just agree that the Fw's are the same.

Contention level:

I definitely prefer depth of argumentation over breadth, knowing your evidence is key to educating yourself on the topic. I will always buy a warrant from your evidence that's well explained and utilized over one that isn't. A lot of responses to arguments made against a card can be found within the card itself. This doesn't mean you should just re-read the card. This does not mean that you can reread your card or tagline and be good.

Hi.

This is Tim Pollard.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2024):

Yearly small note addition before I judge my one-ish tournament of the season, content of last year's note is all you really need to know (but my hearing has improved dramatically).

JanFeb 2024 is a topic that concerns several rapidly-developing global crisis. Evidence that describes the behavior of states a decade ago is probably really questionable. Evidence the describes the relations between countries in the region more than 6 months ago is probably pretty questionable. You should ask your opponent these questions.

** I am going to be very willing to accept reasonable analysis made by a debater about current states of affairs over outdated evidence. **

Brief note for LD Debaters (2023):

Every year I stray further from meaningful investment in debate. All the things below are probably still true, but I have spent even less time involved in the activity than previously. Be gentle. I can hopefully still flow your speed but my sound discrimination is completely shot so make sure you are exceptionally clear at whatever speed you debate.

To summarize the decade of rambling that follows, the process to get me to vote for you is:

a. explain what you are defending.

b. explain why that is different from the other side.

c. explain why that means you win.

I will probably laugh if you structure every argument with each of these three points but based on a lot of the debates I've judged in the past few years it would probably also result in the easiest ballot of my life voting for you.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2022):

Short notes to actually reflect the sort of debates I seem to be judging.

The space topic is complex and kindof unclear about what actually constitutes topical ground. Please make it extremely clear what constitutes "appropriation" and what your position says about it. I will be heavily rewarding debaters who leverage this fact in the speaker points department and think it will greatly improve your strategic position.

util mirrors reward nuance and in-depth analysis. You should be able to identify what the current direction of the status quo is (uniqueness) what the affirmative does to affect that condition (link) and what the implication is for people (impact). Your speech should reflect this structure and the more explicitly you develop what each portion of the argument ("the economy is collapsing now so there's no risk to the disadvantage", "chinese emissions mean US action can't change the status quo") the more directed I will be towards voting for you.

the easiest way to increase your speaker points beyond that on the negative is to not waste speech time reading a nonsense framework that is just "act utilitarianism" when your opponent has already done so. If your framework offers an actual strategic advantage, go ahead but if your 2nc is going to be a body count against the aff's bodycount please don't spend 20s of the 1n telling me why "justice subsumes morality" (please never say that in any debate).

Note for LD debaters (2020):

Below you will find a paradigm that reflects what I've been doing in debate for the last 5 years - infrequently judging policy debates. All the points translate pretty directly back to how I feel about LD. Though I should add that I do have a reasonable amount of familiarity with "LD-style" arguments, so don't worry that I won't like your Kant Aff. I would love to hear your Kant aff.

However, policy debate HAS spoiled me by not having to deal with some of the ... idiosyncrasies of LD debate. Three aimless rant sections identified with bold if you don't have time to read the corpus and need to check what's relevant to you.

First, I think Theory debates in LD generally sit somewhere between asinine and making the activity of debate actively worse. If yr ideal 1ar involves metatheory, I am likely not your judge. I also really don't want to judge any theory debate that would make "Reading util against a Kant aff and then going to case" an impermissible negative strategy (AFC / ACC sort of things). Arguments like theory-justified frameworks are pretty close to that as well, seems like cowards moves. That said THERE ARE DEFINITELY TIMES WHERE YOU CAN AND SHOULD READ THEORY AND THAT'S OK. TOPICALITY is a different class of argument from theory and you should read it.

Second, at an in-person debate event, i would be unable to flow yr a-through-f enumerated warp-speed-delivered 5-word-each wall of spikes. I can't imagine this gets better over Zoom, so enunciate. Slow down a little, or i'm liable to miss the third reason why moral skepticism affirms and I will not vote on it when it shows up in the rebuttal. This is also true in the theory debate. If yr strat is to make your opponent miss something in the cloud of chaff, I'm likely to miss it as well and won't feel bad about not voting on it.

Third, some of the notes on K debates below likely operate slightly differently in LD than in policy debate (or maybe they don't.. i have no idea what the metagame looks like these days). Short version: Yes I will vote for your critical argument. It is absolutely crucial that you explain how it functions and under what understanding of the world and debate I should vote for it if that differs from "the resolution is true/false". I've probably forgotten most of the buzzwords so walk me through it.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round if you want something made more clear or it's not in the doc - I don't spend a lot of time in-depth thinking about debate anymore so I'm sure it's imperfect. timapollard is my google email handle if you have q's. (Actually does this tournament even have prefs? You might just be stuck with me and I hope to provide better service than the average rando. Good luck.)

Top-level (Following material assumed policy debate but still applies generally):

The first thing I evaluate in debates are questions of uniqueness or differentiation. You will win if you prove why whatever you did in your speech is distinct and preferable from your opponents.

I usually think of debate as a game (in the strategic and competitive sense). That doesn’t mean that it lacks extrinsic value or is bound to specific sets of norms or forms of strategy. But does mean that things like speech time limits and my ability to sign a ballot deciding a winner are non-optional. Prep ends when you email the doc or otherwise transmit your speech to the opponent.

The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I am willing to vote on presumption if either I cannot describe to myself what an argument does or can be persuaded by either side wrt it's non-function.

Judging the round is based on the comparative quality of argument as presented. The most important thing is that your chosen form of argumentation displays knowledge of the issues and is compellingly defended. The more you sound well-researched and engaged in the issues, the better points I'm likely to give you.

I evaluate performance in CrossX compatibly to a speech.

I flow on paper and might ask you for some. I still want the doc, but pay attention because I don't want to (and probably won't) dredge up yr args from some speech doc if I couldn't catch them in the speech. I'm usually pretty good at saying if I can't flow you.

Assorted Specifics:

This is the first tournament I have judged on the arms sales topic. Assume my knowledge of the topic is imperfect - as mentioned, yr burden to make me get yr arg.

Plan is implemented and matters debates

I don't subscribe to the offence/defense paradigm and believe in the ability of sufficiently complete defense/lack-of-link to take out an impact.

Going for the permutation against a criticism in your big silly impacts aff generally just sounds weird and you are actually going for "case outweighs" anyway. Seriously just talk about how sweet your aff is. The permutation is a fundamentally defensive argument.

Go for T against policy affs more. Folks are getting away with WAY too much.

KvK debates

First, generating external impacts and/or differentiating your impact claim is critical. Often these debates get gummed up in both teams winning that they solve and the other team causes some amount of violence/oppression - with me left to muck through and pick an internal link story, tending to have people end up unhappy.

Second, explain how yr perm works in the context of the debate round - what does it mean for me to endorse/reject a permutation? The argument that affs don't get permutations in these situations (method v method debate) threatens to make sense but also has to work through my presumption that the negative must prove something the aff does/assumes/engages with is bad. Generally you should not expect to win just for having another good idea.

Clash debates

I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded by args that reduce to FW: Ks are bad. Stop whining and defend yr aff.

I generally think affirmatives should take an affirmative position wrt the topic area (this doesn't mean you need a plan or to defend the politics DA or whatever).

Debates where I vote for critical affirmatives against T usually hinge on the aff either successfully defending what distinguishes the affirmative from a negative arg against topical affs, or winning impact turns. You will benefit from putting a lot of defensive pressure on the neg's impacts - which tend to be poorly developed.

Both sides - don't fall into the trap of forgetting the 1AC. At the end of the day the 1AC happened and its ability to solve is likely strongly determinant of a lot of the rest of the debate.

T debaters: Stop going for the truth-testing 'assume all their args are false because we can't research them' stuff.

freetheoryfiles@gmail.com

email chain = 30 speaks

util trutil, extinction first, debate is a game, no rvis on T, paragraph theory > shells, defend the topic, warming > nuke war, limits is probably true for plans and pics on locals

20 minute video fully explaining my paradigm if the above is insufficient: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt7bzxurJ1I

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

My paradigm is simple. Talk clearly, not too fast, quality of content>quantity, good sportsmanship and good grammar.

Parent judge

I've been judging for a couple years now and would describe myself as an advanced beginner judge.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I will not be able to follow well if you spread.

I really appreciate road maps and good sign posting.

Thank you!

Note for novices: I would advise you to "stay in your lane" as it were, I know debating using progressive techniques can sound fun or like a great way to easily beat your opponent, but frankly I think that is a little unfair. Furthermore, while I cant stop you from running anything you want, recognize that conforming to your judges preferences is an art and a skill that will help you a great deal. I am of the opinion that all debate should be an educational space, but novice especially, it is important to get down the fundamentals of debate before you move on to trickier things, walk before you can run. The rule stands for all debaters I judge that if you can't run it properly don't run it, also I would advise you to advocate for yourself, if you know you won't be able to flow properly if your opponent spreads, say something, you are both have equal rights to learning and enjoyment in this space so your opponent should take your preferences as well as mine into account. Your opponent may have a right to spread, but if they should chose to do so, you are also well within your rights to ask for a copy of their case. I know debate can be scary, especially if you are new to it, but it is truly a place where you can build skills you will use for the rest of your life if you let it, I am not here to work against you, and we've all been scared before going into round, so take a deep breath and know that it will all be okay.

Debate should be a fun and educational space, a little feistiness in round is cool but know the limits. I debated Lincoln Douglas for three years, and have been judging for two more, so I am familiar with most arguments, but make sure to sign post during rebuttal speeches. I am okay with speed but make sure your opponent is also okay. There is a time and place for spreading and if you should feel the need make sure you enunciate clearly, I have yet to find a speed that is too fast for me to flow as long as your words aren't a jumbled mess...content matters here so preference quality over quantity. Furthermore if you should feel the need to spread please send me your case, my email is jaquelinejuniper@outlook.com and I will let you know in round if you are going too fast by either saying "speed" or more likely "clear". I truly believe that a debate should speak for itself and will not make arguments for you so make sure to give me a clear road to the ballot (explain what points you've won and why it should win you the round). That being said while I will evaluate anything you put in front of me frankly, if you can't run a progressive case well, it will work against rather than for you. I believe theory needs to be weighed first in a round, but if you give me half assed theory, I will buy a half assed argument from your opponent to take it out. I don't love DA's, counterplans, K's, but that comes from a place where I RARELY see them run properly. I will evaluate all points you make fairly as long as they are fair points, so make good points and impact them out. WEIGH ARGUMENTS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, it is not enough to just make good points in debate argue against your opponents points and tell me why yours are better. I will not tolerate outright violations of the safety of debate, name calling, intentional misuse of pronouns, derogatory comments of ANY kind toward your opponent; this is about your cases not each other and know that even if your opponent doesn't call you on it, I will via a loss of speaker points. As I said if you both want to be more spirited or plucky in your argumentation I think it can make the round more fun, but don't be rude and recognize how your opponent is feeling, if there is any doubt don't do it, you can usually tell who is up for a round with more banter, and who just needs a straightforward round so while I will always give the benefit of the doubt, don't push it :) (Bonus, ill give extra speaker points if you can work in a LOTR reference)

I'm looking forward to judging a civil and competitive debate!

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Former high school speech/debate competitor. Fifth year coaching speech/debate. It’s really important for me that you are clear, enunciate carefully and don’t speak so fast I can’t track your points. Sign posting is essential. Show me why you won your case. Focusing on impacts is also important to me.

Jay Talmadge ~Any Pronoun~

If you have QUESTIONS email me AND/OR EMAIL CHAIN: jaylintalmadge@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc. is a voting issue. If you say something that attacks an individual or their identity I will not condone this and you will experience consequences based on the severity of the action :)

If you feel uncomfortable or unsafe with something your opponent has said or done please email me and I will deal with it accordingly

Trigger Warnings matter so please include them if need be

tl;dr

I will listen to any argument BUT if you are running any KRITIQUE then I would highly suggest asking if I am familiar with the lit/author. This is not for my need but your desire- if you want me to understand and properly evaluate it then ask. I like dense phil I just also like having enough confidence in the lit to judge the round

Speed is cool with me, if you have a TOC bid I will not be ale to understand your top speed BUT I will say slow and/or clear if I need it <3

BUT I am not the only person in the round- in debate, an institution crammed full with structural inequities the round MUST be accessible to your opponent as well, I want you to run your kritiques but it should not be against a traditional only debater or someone who is not equipped for that debate!!! ALSO IF YOU ARE A COMPETITOR YOU CAN SAY SLOW/CLEAR TOO

PLEASE STOP COUNTING DOWN BEFORE YOU SPEAKKKKKKKK- you can ask if we are ready but y'all just talk

About me: I did LD for 2 and a half years on the Washington local circuit. I am a Freshman at Colby College planning to double major in Science, Technology, and Society and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies with a minor in African American Studies. Yes, I was a traditional debater, no that does not mean I hate progressive nor does it mean I am stupid in regards to it.

**This is being added to after every tournament based on my experiences there. If something is unclear please feel free to reach out because this is VERY incomplete and will be for a while**

I think speaks are dumb but also some tournaments get angry at me if I give everyone 30 so I try to be a speaks fairy but I might be restricted (both by the tournament and by your personal actions)- instead I start at 29

Novices: I consider myself a flow judge. If it is not on my flow but you said it rip.
If you concede something it is technically true BUT YOU HAVE TO EXTEND IT IN EACH SPEECH AND IMPACT AND WARRANT IT OUT!!!!
In addition, here are somethings you should do if you are in this situation: (a) prove to me that those arguments have no impact under the framework, (b) prove to me that the other arguments within the round supersede the ones you have conceded, or (c), if it was your argument conceded, use this to your advantage for time management or even a win.

Weigh your impacts for me. I shouldn't be left at the end of the round with consequences that do not connect to the framework or each other. I am not gonna pick what is the more important impact for you.

Please do not spread unless you have confirmation from your opponent that they are okay with it

Time yourself and please, for the life of things, do not count down before starting your time or tell me when you are starting your time just start speaking!! :relieved:

General

I prefer doc exchange (1) online sucks (2) its good for evidence verification and making sure people aren't clipping (3) makes the debate more equitable for people who would prefer (or need) both the auditory and the visuals.

The Neg's obligation in the round is not to defend that the status quo is a good place, rather to show that in comparison the Aff's world is worse.

Framework itself is not an argument for traditional debate. It is what you propose to me is how we should view the round and understand impacts. Having said that, for K's framework and the roll of the ballot is up to you to tell me how to evaluate it- is the presumptions the topic/aff makes itself an impact to vote neg? idk. Also, if the roll of the ballot is to vote for the person who did better in cross ex, and it is agreed upon in the round, I will literally vote off that.

Tech > truth most of the time

Prep Time:

I am ok with flex prep, however it is your opponent's choice to answer a question or not, they are not obligated. They also have the right to tell you to be quiet.

You may play music during your own prep but not your opponents'!!!

Speaking:
1. Clarity over quantity. ESPECIALLY ONLINE It will be a better debate for your opponent(s), you and me if you prioritize speaking clearly over speaking more. I will honestly do my best to say clear and slow but I will often get too distracted trying to follow your arguments so if I look lost I would try slowing down to see if that helps. ALSO, if you are a competitor you have the right to tell your opponent to slow/clear (they are different so try to be specific), this space should be accessible hearing wise for everyone participating.

2. If you do want to go fast, work your way up to your top speed!!!! Start at like 75% or some other pretty arbitrary but slower than top speed pace then as you read your constructive/go through your refutation you can pick up the speed. I need time to get used to your voice and ngl its been a bit since I've heard people speak at their top speed so just help ease me into it

Theory:

I am ok with T. I have had a lot of annoying experiences with frivolous T when I was a novice so if you are a novice running T don't just do it as a cop out to "out smart" your opponent, its not a cute look. THIS MAY MEAN if you read T to extend it and not drop it immediately in the next speech (this is different from kicking T). That tells me you ran it for literally no reason <3

Open members: go for it, have fun. I am still developing my opinion of competing interps versus reasonability so you tell me and justify why and I will probably opt for what you put forward.

K's:

Link- How does this aff in particular actually link to the K. If you read only generic cards I will listen but no one is getting much out of that and I can almost guarantee you the aff has more specific links. If the links are carded for generic links and analytical for more specific ones I will take it.

Alt- Ideally, the alt has both positive in-round impacts and if we imagined a world in which it was implemented positive out-of-round impacts. That's not going to happen in each round so if you have only one, tell me why you only need one of them or why the one you offer me outweighs the other one.
I prefer alts to be really clear and not generic. If your alt is more than reject the aff tell me what that world is like and how its vibing more than the aff.

CP:

I have no preference for conditionality at the moment- make your claim and back it up then we are cool.

Clarity of the plan text is important for everyone to be on the same page, SLOW DOWN or say it twice something so your opponent and I can engage with the round properly.

Something being textually competitive only is usually not enough for me to buy the CP. This is true because usually there is an avenue or two you can take to find evidence or whatnot to make the CP (I forget the "proper" word so I am going to say) contextually competitive- it can be something even as simple as funding reallocation just try to give me something more.

ALSO I don't know why I have to add this but you should link to the aff if not, even if your opponent doesn't call it out I will buy the perm SO easily

If you cannot talk both clearly and fast at the same time, then I would prefer you to slow down and speak clearly. I will remind you at the beginning of the debate and I will ask you to slow down if you are going too fast to a point that it is hard to get your points. But I will only remind you once during the debate. If there is no improvement, I won't give you more than 27 speaker points simply because it would be very hard to understand you.

Be respectful to your opponents and the judge during the debate. Disrespectful words or attitude will cost you speaker points.

I am open to different types of arguments, but I like arguments that are well-structured and developed with clear logic.

I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability.

Guidelines:

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly. Signpost your speeches.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone who's giving a speech off. I will cut them off if they keep talking for way too long.

I stop listening when you go over time.

I prefer impacts with a clear link chain over world war three/extinction/nuclear war impacts. Don't sacrifice logic for magnitude. PLEASE.

Have fun!

quick prefs - I'm a parent judge

1- traditional, lay debate

2 - 4 - everything in between not really preferable only pref me high if you want to do traditional lay debate

5/strike - circuit debate, spreading, high theory, Phil, ks, t/tricks, literally anything that's not lay

General comments

- assume I know nothing about the topic (explain everything to me)

- give voters and clearly articulate why I should vote for you at the end of the round

- be respectful, don't make racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist arguments, such arguments will result in a L20

- speaker points start at 26 and only goes up from there

- I don't "flow" but I will be paying attention to the round and evaluating based on whoever gives clear voters or have clearing won the round

- for online debate I don't care if you turn your cameras on

- put me on the email chain, Calvin.wang@trocha.com.tw

- my idea of autonomous weapons are weapons that attack by itself, without human intervention, this means that you will need to put in more work to convince me otherwise in the round if you define things such as drones or landmines as autonomous weapons

Hello! I’m Lucas (He/Him/His), I debated LD throughout high school for South Kitsap—finaling at the WA state tournament and going to Nationals in my senior year. I now debate policy for Western Washington University, coach debate for Eastside Catholic, and teach debate occasionally for Climb the Mountain. I've experimented with a lot of styles over the years: traditional LD, policy (aff and neg), performance, and Kritikal. The latter has been where I've settled if you're interested.

Add me to the email chain, though I can handle speed just fine: ldwatson2000@gmail.com

tl;dr:

I consider myself truly tabula rasa, like many judges. However I am only human and thus prone to either implicit bias or selective familiarity with certain arguments over others. These are detailed below for your convenience (though don't let my paradigm dissuade you from what you are comfortable with).

General:

There is one loser and one winner. Speaker points are not really debateable. Time limits should be followed. Disclosure on the wiki is good. I generally believe tech over truth but you can absolutely convince me otherwise in round. I will not evaluate who belongs to which identity group and generally will not use allegations of things that happened outside of the round in my decision. Please do report those things to other adults who are in charge. Further than that, anything that happens within round is fair game, but must be argued in such a way that it can be evaluated on the ballot.

Policy/larp: Not much to say, go for it. However, please avoid contrived scenarios with poor internal links.

K:

K affs should probably have contextual answers to framework. If they do not defend the hypothetical implementation of the resolution then I hold them to a far higher standard on the case page—if it is reducible to just racism/capitalism/oppression bad without any unique elaboration or insight then how is it to be evaluated within the specific round? You aren’t bound by the resolution by choice, so make that choice worth the risk.

Make framework count—you are creating a radically different and reactive vision of debate. Instead of focusing specifically on punishing deviance, a strong framework 2nr should explain why their model or debate is net beneficial, probably through a creative and carded tva.

1nc shells should generally contain contexualized links and you should be able to explain in detail at the very least the entire work (so if it’s a book, the whole book or at least what is relevant...) from which the cards you expound upon on in the 2nr are cut. You don’t need to restate the tags unless there is a benefit.

K’s I have read extensively (though I do not pref any):

Hauntology

SetCol

Queer

Cap/Marxism

Performance:

Performance affs can transmit narratives that the overall White, male cisheteronormative debate space tends to ignore—and I respect that that cannot be expressed in more traditional formats. To compel me to give you the ballot, please make the implications of your performance last beyond the 1ac timer beep—and, more importantly, embody it throughout the entire round! I like to see both a natural and strategic evolution and a consistent narrative and performative ethos in both k and performance debates.

Negative teams, please come up with some creative links and plausible examples when going for Cap against these affs. I know the narrative of your 1nc shell already; can you make it as unique and compelling as the 1ac? Do “boring politics” have to be boring? Please understand I’m a busy pre-law student running on far too little sleep and a narcoleptic tendency when these flows take a turn towards less...stellar/substantive debating.

DA: Blow me away. The more tenuous the link, though, the smaller amount of internal links you can likely get away with. Picture the graph of e^-x. Impact turns are strategic sometimes, more often attenuated, and often morally repugnant—but, if argued consistently, can get my ballot.

CP: Explain the net benefit (please). Have a clear delineated text. I don’t really have any preferences/opinions on types: that is for in-round theory to decide. I need a better articulation than just buzz words for a good CP debate--What does your perm mean? Why is their CP bad in terms of the debate model? (I'd like more here than just "education" and "fairness").

T/theory: I love it and, similar to CPs, have no overarching preferences toward what can and cannot be run. I am totally fine with rounds being reduced to theory debates—just make sure I know why I’m supposed to accept your interpretation and subsequently give you the ballot based on it. Weighing procedurals against anything your opponent might be winning will help your position immensely.

If there are any questions/concerns, feel free to ask me before the round starts with both debaters present.

My Experience Comes Mainly In LD. - 2 Years as of 2020

Mostly truth over tech, though I will vote both ways

Basic Stuff: Don't Care Where Sit, Either Sit or Stand, whatever is preferred. Timing yourself is highly recommended. I give a few seconds of grace at the end of your speech but after that, I won't flow what you say. I vote primarily off of flow.

Speed is well, I don't really care. If you want to go fast, do so. If you are a slower debater, great go slow. However, if spreading please flash the case, otherwise, I probably won't be fast enough to flow arguments. To let me know you are going fast close your eyes and say "I am speed."

Argument Wise, I am really open to anything, but I do like a typical Value/Criterion debate. K's, DAs, T-shells, Plans, or whatever has to be explained well enough that I can understand. And if they just don't make sense I really will not vote on them. I have a high threshold for T, probably won't vote on it unless large. As for meme cases, run them but probably won't vote for them. I will give extra speaker points if you can prove to me you can juggle.

This is how I pick my Champion:

1. Pick the winning framework/whatever is best.

2. Weigh the impacts through the framework, whichever side has the largest/most impacts under the fw will win the round.

This is how LD rounds should be judged. Sorry if some parent judges don't understand that.

Tl:Dr

No outside bias

Speed doesn't matter

Open to any argument, provided it is explained