For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.

Pref Cheat Sheet

Traditional Debate/Lay- 1

Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4

Complex Phil- 4

Tricks- 4

Ks- Strike

Friv Theory- Strike

Spreading- Strike

I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you.  It is anti-educational.

I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- sonalbatra14@gmail.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)

I like a good, reasonable argument

Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.

Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.

Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.

Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.

Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.

Pet Peeves-

- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)

- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)

- being rude to your opponent

- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.

Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!

I am a judge that values both substance and format.

No spreading please. I like a good value debate and judge heavily on links to framework. Impacts and weighing are important to me. And be nice to each other.

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Hi, my name is Akshana and I'm a first year out from PA. I did a lil debate (LD & Policy) in high school and am super comfortable judging them, and I also judge parliamentary as well.

I'll vote for anything if you win it. I'm not very good at flowing so pls go 60-70% top speed if it’s super technical.

PLEASE IMPACT OUT AND WEIGH YOUR ARGS. I really hate having to do the weighing myself at the end of the round, and more likely than not I'll probably arbitrarily pick which impact I care about more in the moment. I'll give you high speaks if I like the way you debate or if you make me like debate :)

I don't like tricks. I have a very high threshold for independent voters; they're usually very arbitrary BUT feel free to use them.

PLEASE KEEP TRACK OF YOUR TIME AND YOUR OPPONENTS TIME. 99% of the time I'm not timing you, and if your opponent calls you out on time I'm going to dock your speaks.

For K's i'm quite familiar with Set Col, Security, and ID Pol Ks, but you should read what you're most comfortable with. Whatever you read, make sure to be more nuanced than just extending taglines from the NC the whole round, even if you read lit I'm familiar with I'm not going to fill in any blanks you leave for you

Brief note for parli:

Please try to be polite w/ interrupting for questions (and generally accommodating towards if you're the one speaking) , I really only care about the flow, but if one team is blatantly rude, hostile, or just misusing their time then I'll start to dock speaks.

I am a lay judge and prefer traditional debate and limited speed.

Debate:

I do not mind spreading. If you are an inarticulate spreader, then you will send me your case as well as your opponent:isabella.droginske@k12.wv.us

I strongly oppose paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches.

I greatly appreciate framework debates and debates that really investigate philosophical ideas. I have a fair knowledge base of Rawls, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mills, and general schools of thought.

I do not mind Ks but excessive T is something I feel very strongly against.

I believe that debate should have the highest form of decorum throughout. I do dock speaker point for lack of decorum and respect to your opponent, judge(s), and the art of debate.

I make final decisions based on my flow-Tabula Rasa.

—LD: I appreciate robust value debates. Don’t collapse. Flow value to your side.

--PF: I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round.

--Congress: I'm looking for analysis that engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

Speech: Do not be on your phone while a performer is performing in a round. Decorum counts.

Prepared events should know their times and be, well, prepared from the start.

—Extemp: Citations and organization are really important to me, but so is the entertainment part. Be compelling. Have an interesting AGD. Connect it at the end of your speech.

In debate, I must be able to understand your argument. If you relay information too rapidly and I am unable to understand the information, I can not include that information in my decision.

You do you and I'll judge accordingly. Run the arguments with which you are most comfortable.

Email chain, please! jhollihan18@gmail.com

he/him

Policy:

I debated for four years in high school, most of that time being a 1A/2N, and on these topics: China Relations, Education, Immigration, and Arms Sales. Most of my 1ACs were soft left and I usually went for DA + case or the Cap K in the 2NR.

Please try not to spread or at the very least, SLOW DOWN. I have not debated competitively since high school and have become more numb to spreading; I've also become more ideologically opposed to it. If you are going at top speed, odds are I might miss something you say and you don't want that to happen. I try not to look at the speech doc, but that may depend on the speed at which you read. Try to go slower than you normally would. If you are zipping through your theory/T blocks, I will assume that you have not read this and I will be annoyed.

PF/LD:

I find myself judging very similar debates halfway through a resolution cycle. However, please don't assume I know the ins and outs or the trends of a given topic (e.g., acronyms, legislation/litigation, key arguments/data).

As a debater with a policy background, I really dislike evidence sharing norms in PF and LD. Why are we not just sharing the speech docs? Since email chains are not the community norms, you should have ALL of your evidence ready to go (though, an email chain would always be appreciated). Wasting 5-10 minutes to find one piece of evidence is not only frustrating for me, it can also hold up the tournament.

Hi! I'm Matt (He/Him). I did LD for 3 years as my main event but I also did PA Parliamentary and World Schools. I am familiar with PF, but I am admittedly bad at it. I have been the LD Coach at Pgh Central Catholic HS since 2021. I've judged 162 rounds of LD, PF, Parli, and congress over the past 3 years on both the Pittsburgh-circuit level as well as State and National level break rounds.

Upper St. Clair '20 / Pitt '24

email: Matthew.hornak@gmail.com

TLDR: play nice, have fun, run whatever you want. I hate drops, think theory is usually unnecessary, want a strong framework debate, and won't buy impacts in LD that belong in PF/Policy.

NOTES ON DEBATE / CASES:

1. Framework. I understand dropping your frameworks when they are similar and debating them would just waste time. HOWEVER, framework is the heart of LD and what sets it apart from the other debates. Maintain that.

2. I like APPLICABLE philosophy.By all means run out of the ordinary things like Anarchy, AfroPess, Buddhist ethics, whatever you can think of. Just give me convincing reason to care about you bringing it up. Creativity in the framework is only gonna help you if you use it to weigh your impacts and extend it through the round. As for progressive stuff, run a K / theory if you think it'll actually lead to a substantive debate (don't steamroll some poor novice).

3.Evidence Ethics. Use scholarly and reputable sources. Don't expect a singular dropped card to win you a round. That being said, try and directly rebut line-by-line as much as possible. I prefer line-by-line to thematic, overarching arguments. If your opponent calls for evidence, you've got one minute to produce it -- I will heavily consider dropping you full stop for not being able to do so. I don't need you guys to do email chains but I also don't mind them, so do what you want.

4. Extinction/unweighted Impacts. I do not buy extinction impacts. they are inherently unweighable: how will causing or preventing infinite deaths ever be comparable to issues of inequality, justice, and morality? those arguments, if you chose to make them, need to be so excruciatingly clear and logical. After all, LD is rarely talking about the extreme ends of slippery slopes, but the grey area between both sides.

5. Cross-Apply. If you are going to say cross-apply a contention, you need to say more about why I prefer your contention over your opponent. I simply won't flow it and treat it as a drop if you just say "cross-apply" and leave it at that.

NOTES ON SPEECHES / SPEAKING:

1. Speed. I prefer slower, traditional style debate. If you need need need to spread, I can make it work for you, but I'd prefer you avoided it.

2. Speak respectfully. Debate is a space to explore and test ideas. Respect that ability for your competitor as well. Police your speech a little and try and avoid tropes that are easily misconstrued toward offensiveness. Before you come to a tournament, genuinely consider what positions you advocating; even if you are running "main arguments" of the topic, consider how your rhetoric may be implicitly xenophobic, racist, sexist, etc. ((in 2023, I heard "migrants will bring disease and copious amounts of crime" more times than I can count)). If your opponent is being rude and offensive, handle it professionally and if it is a genuine cause of concern for you, let me know privately post round / let tab know.

3. Drops are the necessary evil of debate, but they do not decide my rounds. If your final speech consists entirely of drops, I'm 90% sure I will not pick you up; your arguments are all why your opponent is bad, not why their arguments are bad or yours are any better. I still respect drops because those are the rules, but please don't hinge my decision on that.

OVERALL:

Have fun. not just as in "be happy when you win and remember its all learning Kiddos!!11!" I mean, crack some jokes, make me and your opponent smile! this isn't life or death it's 3 to 5 people sitting in a room way to early on a weekend. make this more bearable pleaseeeeee.

I am a traditional judge. Do not spread or read kritiks/theory/anything niche unless both you and your opponent want to then that is fine.

If you are going to argue that an action leads to something extreme like nuclear war/extinction/etc, I need a strong explanation for why that is the case or I will be very hesitant to vote on it. Though in general, I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense (and of course isn't offensive or blatantly false).

Please be respectful. I will drop you if you are extremely rude/unpleasant towards your opponent. I will also drop you if you spread against an opponent who does not know what that is.

Hi friend

My name is Nevin and my pronouns are they/them.

This paradigm is for LD mostly.

Sparknotes

(1) Please give me your case (if possible before the round) nevinekara@gmail.com

(2) Be super big picture and weigh (why should u win and they lose)

(3) I like non T stuff, Ks, and performance. But dumb down the Ks and make sure the performance makes sense.

(4) T and theory are fine as long as u aren’t rude about it.

(5) don’t be messy

On speed/speaking

(1) Email me your case, flash me your case, make a speech drop, or something. I just need to see a case.

(2) I disassociate when people spread sometimes so make sure that what you are saying is in the doc or slow down when you want me to hear something specific.

(3) If you don’t read something that is in the doc, edit it and send a new copy.

(4) Please don’t yell or talk aggressively.

Aff

(1) Do whatever you want, but make sure everything you are doing has a purpose.

(2) If you want to read something nontopical or anti topical, a good chunk of the 1AC should be explaining why you are doing that and make sure you don’t lose that explanation in the 1AR and 2AR.

(3) If you aren’t topical, don’t pretend to be. But if you just have an interesting interpretation of the resolution that isn’t common, be prepared to defend why your interpretation is good for debate under your own standards and theirs.

CX

(1)) Ask strategic questions or forfeit the rest of your time (no penalty to speaker points).

(2) CX is binding. No take backsies.

(3) flex prep is NOT binding as is preferably only for clarification.

Ks

(1) I like Ks. I don’t like when people kick Ks. Neither of those things affects how I vote (unless it’s a white boy reading wilderson).

(2) please be super big picture and dumb down the K. Not for your opponent, for me.

(3) If you don’t understand the thesis of your K, maybe don’t read it.

(4) I like identity Ks. Just make sure the links are clear. They can all be generic links if you want but I prefer that at least a few are specific to the round and what your opponent did or said wrong. It’s always more fun that way.

Performance

(1) I did this :D

(2) reading a 30 second poem does not necessarily make your case performative. A big part of performance (in my opinion) is gut checking.

(3) make sure to be super big picture about why your performance is necessary and why the ballot/judge’s support is key

(4) Don’t be afraid to divorce yourself from debate norms.

(5)Your opponent might try to out tech you. Don’t let those bastards win! Spend the majority of your time in all your speeches contextualizing your case and explaining why an Aff/Neg ballot matters.

(6) point out when they are doing things that are harmful and make sure to say something like “vote them down for this” or “they should lose because of this”

(7) don’t read against a novice unless they deserve it (i.e. they are known to be racist or something)

DAs

(1) This is just a fancy contention, so I refuse to flow them on separate sheets of paper.

(2) Make sure to weigh. Extinction doesn’t outweigh just because you or your card without a warrant says so.

CPs

(1) Stupid CPs make me laugh. The others hurt my brain.

(2) Don’t accidentally do a CP that links into a criticism you make of the AC (I wish I didn’t have to say this) If you contradict yourself and your opponent calls you out, I won’t let you kick out of your CP to resolve the contradiction because I will consider that an offensive argument for the Aff

T

(1) Make sure the violation is clear and specific

(2) Make sure the shell functions as a unit (its just tacky if I can tell you copy pasted parts of the shell from other shells)

(3) I don’t mind if you read T just to waste time (this is NOT how I feel about theory shells though)

(4) Don’t read T against a performance unless you are going to go all in on it and are prepared to defend why a topical world is a good one for 6 minutes in the NR.

Theory

(1) Don’t read frivolous theory or tricks. We both know what that means.

(2) Don’t be afraid to read a shell in front of me. If you have a good abuse story and some bomb standards, I will easily vote for you.

(3) Don’t spread the whole thing and really try to give a good 30 second big picture overview at the end.

(4) If you are winning on the standards debate, you win the round. You don’t have to extend every part of a shell to win with me as a judge.

(5) I like RVIs they make me laugh and I enjoy voting on them when someone drops or mishandles them

(6) don't read theory or T in front of me if your opponent is lay or from a small school.

Other stuff

(1) Be nice and don’t be racist

(2) Keep your own time

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents:

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa (I don't prep the topics for these formats anyways) with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, I don't like listening to extinction level impacts but will vote on it, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. Please don't spread faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

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

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

Traditional Judge

I expect to see an articulate, well reasoned debate.

Background: I have judged at states, Harvard, Yale, Wake Forest, and many times on the local circuit. I have over 10 years of judging experience, and have been able to judge every event during that time. I am a flow judge for debate, although I do not care for the intricacies of the debate.

LD: Though I can follow and understand theory, do not run it. Stick to the topic at hand and try to be as concise as possible. I understand that you may need to spread if you have a long case or have to address card dumping, but recognize that I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Also, I expect common courtesy throughout the round and it will affect my ballot. If you need to present evidence, do so in a clear and efficient way. Stick to your framework and don't debate the philosophical side of LD. Finally, do not be overaggressive if you are going against an unexperienced opponent.

PF: You can spread if need be, but keep in mind, I cannot flow or vote off of what I cannot understand. Keep the arguments simple enough with a link-chain that isn't too complex. During rebuttal, keep eye contact and try to extend your warranting. I will pay some attention to cross-fires; but if any major concessions occur you must bring it up in a separate speech. If your opponent drops a major point, mention it during your next speech, or I will not vote off of it. Do not bring up new points during final focus or second summary, for I will not take note of them. Have a clear weighing mechanism and do not leave it up to my interpretation/give me clear reasons why to vote for you. When presenting evidence, make sure it is clear where the information actually is.

All Other Debate Events: You can spread, though keep in mind I cannot vote off of what I cannot understand. Try to keep eye contact (if possible) and hold yourself to a high standard of oral presentation.

If I am judging a speech event, ask me for my preferences in person, as they change from time to time.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for 3 years in high school, and have coached for the past two years with novice debaters. Most of my experience was in western Pennsylvania on a local level, but I did compete occasionally on the national circuit.

My judge paradigm is limited only by what I can understand, because I don't really have any preferences concerning how students should debate or how the round should play out. If you take sufficient time explain your arguments then you can do whatever your want. I'm fine with theory or k's or any other off args, but am not used to evaluating them based on the level of debate I usually judge nowadays. Speed is fine as long as I can flow (can follow the slower end of what is considered "spreading" but not ridiculous speeds). Still debaters should preference clarity over speed. If a point is especially important, slow down. 

I debated for four years at William Tennent High School, mostly LD (but I did a good amount of Policy as well). I am now an Assistant Coach at Pennsbury High School and a student of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. The details of my personal life may bore you, but I only include them so you can know that I am not completely clueless in the realm of debate.

To save your time and mine, I have attempted to reduce my judging philosophy to a handful of bullet-points:

>The most important aspect of my judging philosophy is tabula rasa.

>I keep a detailed flow and value line-by-line debate. I will probably notice if you drop something.

>I am fine with spreading. Just be sure to say taglines/author names clearly. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

>I love good framework debate. It's easier for me to pick a winner when I have a clear lens through which I can evaluate the round.

>I guess evidence is nice and a good thing to have. Extending that evidence throughout the round is also nice.

Feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. I will answer them to the best of my ability.

"As the biggest library if it is in disorder is not as useful as a small but well-arranged one, so you may accumulate a vast amount of knowledge but it will be of far less value to you than a much smaller amount if you have not thought it over for yourself..." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Hi y'all! My email is aerynsmith2015@gmail.com, please add me to your thread.

I did policy debate for three years on the national circuit in high school and have judged sporadically since then (McDowell HS '11, Northwestern U '15).

Being that I was a policy debater and I'm judging LD, I'd like to see more traditional LD rounds. Also being that I was a policy debater, I'm okay with speed and with progressive LD-- since I'm getting back into the swing of judging, if you're going to spread, please slow it down a bit. I'll say clear a few times if I need you to slow down or be clearer before my flows get messy and it starts to hurt your speaks and chances of winning the round.

Put simply, I'm going to vote how you tell me to vote-- if I have to take lots of time to look at my flows and your evidence after the round is over, that's a bad sign. Please be clear with your impact analysis and relate it back to your framework. I pref truth over tech.

Be respectful and let's have fun!

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.