2021 — Lindale (Online), TX/US
Extemporaneous Speaking Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
For debate: Please don't spread and read your contentions nice and clearly. I am looking for a line-by-line rebuttal and up-to-date evidence with appropriate statistics.
My background is 5 years of debate for Oak Ridge High School, Texas. I've achieved Superior Distinction from NSDA and my main events are LD, PF, and Extemporaneous speaking
For LD: I am a fairly traditional judge. I like impact level debates, either on the framework level or contention level. If you're running anything off-case, especially a plan/counterplan, provide solvency. I'm not into theory level debate.
For PF: I'm a traditional judge for PF as well, and I expect both sides to heavily weigh impacts and provide solvency, especially if you're running an off-case.
Speaking Events(Extemp, OO, etc): Speak clearly and link impacts from sources into the main topic idea. Try to reflect on the points of the opposing side of your viewpoint to reflect on how your solution/resolution can better be embraced.
I am a retired speech and debate coach and am comfortable with all debate, speech and interp events. In CX I am a stock issues/policy maker; in LD I am more traditional; in PF I look for evidence and analysis. Congressional Debate and Extemp need evidence and analysis as well.
General info for all debate—
1) no speed - this is a communication event
2) follow guidelines for each event that make that event unique.
3) I prefer a debate that is organized structurally so I may flow easier. I like internal structure like A, B, C and 1, 2, 3.
4) if an argument is not attacked it is a drop unless originator of argument fails to extend in which case it’s a wash.
5) CX is for asking questions not making speeches. Keep it professional.
LD- I expect a value & criterion. When topics are policy oriented, I can vote on policy. Regardless, I find standards to be important, especially how debaters respond. Please be sure to respond to the FW. I do not view LD as one person policy so be aware of your argumentation style.
CX- this is a team event and both partners need to be actively involved in the debate. I expect the affirmative to offer a plan. I am fine with counter plans but if one is presented it must be competitive with the plan (either mutually exclusive with the affirmative or be undesirable in conjunction with the plan). I am fine with disads. I don’t care for Kritiks and would prefer you debate the topic rather than make theory arguments. I want a friendly debate free of rude or negative comments and a cross ex that is meaningful and helps strategically set up future arguments. If you are varsity and debate a inexperienced team help make it a teachable round so they remain interested in the activity and grow as a debater- no need to beat them up and discourage inexperienced teams. I do evaluate the stock issues first and then look to policy making. I do my best to come to the debate with an open mind. I also like the debater to be clear in extending arguments, I expect credible evidence (explain why it matters) and to provide analysis and voters.
I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.
I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.
Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.
I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.
If you have questions, please feel free to ask.
(Full Update - March 2021)
*Bolded information is for skimming if you're short on time.
**Online Tournament Notes: I'll unmute and let you know if you're having audio problems. Still comfortable with speed, but ask that we slow down a couple of notches from top speed to account for lag.
Feel free to just call me Kay; pronouns are she/her. I did policy for four years at North Lamar High School and have been judging since graduating in 2017.
If you are using an email chain, my email is firstname.lastname@example.org. If you are flashing, I don't want the flash and I'll ask if I need a specific piece of evidence post-round.
Attaching to the flash/email isn't prep unless it's excessive. If you're moving stuff between documents or around inside the document, that should be on the clock. If anything gets excessive, I'll let you know to start prep again.
Philosophy (all events):
Debate should be about the arguments you find "best" for you. I am comfortable and equally happy in well-warranted policy debates as I am in well-warranted kritikal or performance debates. When not given another framing mechanism, I tend to default to an offense/defense paradigm. My general answer to what "should" be allowed in a round is that theory read/answered by the debaters will parse that out.
[added on 2/23/2023] - For the sake of transparency, I want to add a few caveats to the above. The more I listen to it, the more I've discovered that I have a pretty high threshold for voting on disclosure theory. Just something to be aware of if you choose to read it in front of me.
Speaker Points (all events):
I assign speaker points on strategic decision-making and organization (including signposting and coherent line-by-line). I will dock speaker points for excessive rudeness, demeaning others in the debate, and intentionally making offensive/discriminatory arguments or comments in the debate.
Easy Routes to my Ballot (policy but also everything else really):
1. You should construct the narrative you want on my ballot. This means that I don't want to have to fill in internal links, test truth claims, or filter your offense through the framing that wins the debate.
2. Consistency across speeches is important. That means I'm not voting on 2NR/2AR arguments from the 1AC/1NC that aren't in the block or 1AR. I also have a pretty high threshold for buying arguments that are shadow extended through the block/1AR.
3. I prefer evidence analysis/extension over card dumps. I very seldom find dumping cards onto the flow in the 2NC/2AC compelling if I'm not getting some articulation of how the evidence functions in the round.
I'm fine with everything from more traditional value/criterion debate to more policy-style debates, performance debates, etc. Have the debate you want and are most comfortable having. That being said, some of the less common LD arguments (skep, NIBs, etc.) are pretty out of my wheelhouse and will require some serious explanation for me to understand them enough to feel comfortable voting on them.
One other thing I like to add for LD'ers: winning framework (morality good, util good, etc.) isn't enough to win the debate if you aren't winning a piece of offense through your framing. I won't do the work of weighing your offense for you, either, so please show me how your offense connects to your framing.
PF Note (updated September 2020): I don't judge very much PF, but you all ask this question, so I'll go ahead and make it easy on you: defense isn't sticky.
Feel free to email or talk to me in person before or after the round with any questions that come up!
No two rounds are the same, so depending on the round, I can vote on framework, clash, structure, analytics, or impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Persuade me why I should care and vote for you.
Ensure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right.
I’m good with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, don’t go overboard to where you do so much that you can't keep up with your arguments and structure.
I have a background in both traditional and progressive LD and PF. If I am in a CX round, then something has gone terribly wrong.
If you are rude, condescending, abusive, etc., in the round, you WILL be called out and possibly ranked down because of it. This is supposed to be a healthy, educational environment, and I don't condone people acting like they are better than any other competitor just because of how many rounds they have won.
I should put this in all caps, but if you behave unprofessionally in the chamber, I will completely dock you. Nothing is worse than complete disrespect for the round, competitors, and judges.
Also, I don't automatically vote you up just for being PO. Don't run for PO if you don't have your Parli procedures down; I know them.
Content is key to winning in congress and being active in the chamber. Ask questions that make you stand out for the RIGHT reasons, not because you made someone laugh.
I have multiple state titles and have competed in numerous national out rounds on the high school and college circuit, so I don't just go by "who has the best story." Characterization and development are important, as well as clean delivery. No topics are off-limits, and follow the parameters of the event.
If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at email@example.com.
Hi, y'all! My name is Rachel and I competed for Salado High School for four years, The University of Texas Speech Team for four years, and am currently in my last year of law school at Texas Law! I'll be moving to DC this fall to work in National Security at a private firm.
I was primarily and LP'er (limited preparation -- extemp and impromptu) and PA'er (public address) during college. I competed in Congress during high school and served as the Congress Curriculum Director for The University of Texas National Institute in Forensics after graduating in 2019. Although I never competed in interp, thanks to the Texas Speech Team (and living with a DI national champion), I have watched many interp performances and know what does and does not work.
First rule of extemp: answer the question! If you don't read the question carefully, odds are you will not answer what the question is looking for - if you can't answer the question, I cannot award you the round.
Excellent sourcing is a must. I do not look favorably upon CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc.
I look for a solid substructure within the speech. The speech should flow easily and be coherent to even non-speech judges.
I am not a fan of the grace period (college extempers can't use it and, although you are allowed to, I would prefer you stay within 7 minutes).
I want a solid structure to the speech. If I cannot follow the path you are trying to lead me down, I am not going to look favorably upon the speech. This means you MUST preview in your introduction.
Transitions between main points are also essential.
For OO, the solutions need to be tangible and something that I, as an audience member, can do. If the solutions are abstract and not something I can accomplish -- you are not completely fulfilling your role as an orator.
For INFO: the implications are the heart of the speech. Your implications must encourage me to examine the speech through a lens I would not have otherwise considered. I do not want cookie cutter implications. Most of my comments will likely be placed here.
I will flow your speech and point out any holes that may exist for me.
I do not pay attention to delivery as much as I do the meat of the speech. However, I would love to see well intentioned delivery.
Preview in your introduction.
You MUST have excellent sources and I will not look favorably upon a point that has no sources at all. How am I supposed to evaluate something that is purely opinion?
The only time I will excuse no clash in a speech is if you are the author/sponsor or the first neg.
You will not be rewarded for re-hash.
To PO's: I pay heavy attention to how you are conducting the round.
Be kind in questioning. Do not be abusive in any aspect of the speech.
I will mostly focus on your argument to make sure it's clear! Most of the comments you get from me will likely be about the structure of the introduction.
I jokingly say this when students ask for paradigms but I super mean it: I don't have PF paradigm because most of the time y'all don't listen to it. If I directly tell you my paradigm and you clearly flout it, I will consider this means to dock speaker points. If there's one thing I can give you here: don't be abusive. If you are abusive, I will automatically drop you.
Thanks and hook 'em!
You should be good to run whatever you want as quick as you're comfortable running it. If there’s no framing, I default to offense/defense. Yes, I want the files too. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded.
If you have any questions for me, or need to put me in the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you are a junior or senior and want to do debate in college, ask me about Texas State!! We have a nationally competitive program with speech events, policy, parli, and public debate. If you have any questions about debating here at all just hunt me down or email me at the same email above!!
Hello! I was a 4 year policy debater in high school with extensive experience in the major circuits in Texas, and I competed in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I'm here to evaluate arguments not to tell you what to run, so you can probably read any argument you're comfortable with if I'm in the back of your room. I'm a tab judge, but if there’s absolutely NO work done towards a rotb, rotj, or theory, then I tend to default to offense/defense. I usually buy quality of arguments over quantity of evidence (although you're putting yourself ahead if you have quality arguments with a good quantity of evidence). Tech and truth is the golden standard, then tech, then truth (this is subject to change though if you're telling me outright lies).
Speech drop is ideal, but email chain is fine and I'd like to be included in whatever form of file sharing y'all engage in. Prep time doesn't stop until the doc is uploaded (unless y'all are physically uploading to a flash drive and walking it to the other team, then prep stops when you start to walk the drive to the opponents)-- too many teams have taken advantage of their ability to "save the doc" to steal prep time.
Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round!!
T/Theory: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. The clash on T should be heavier in the standards and voters side, rather than the interp/violation. In order to win the T the aff HAS to prove to me exactly why your interp is better, and have pretty heavy ink on the standards and voters. For the neg to win T, there HAS to be some form of an impact accessed through the voters. Whether that be the fairness of this round specifically, the spillover into the debate community as a whole, a loss of education, etc. Without an impact, I have nowhere to vote. Reasonability is an interp-level argument, you should be arguing "this is a reasonable interpretation of the topic" NOT "my aff is reasonably topical" (idek what that second sentence means).
DA: disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides). DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense, unanswered defense=a wash unless I’m given a reason to disregard minor defensive drops through impact calc/framing.
CP: counter plans are great. I’ll vote on PICs, I think they’re a super effective tool against the aff, but I'm also definitely ready to hear a good theory round on why PICs are bad (or why whatever method of CP the neg decides to run is bad. I think that "x cps are bad" arguments work best when they are specific to why their CP triggers whatever form of impact you're putting on the theory though).
I'm not the biggest fan of judge kick and start the round from the assumption I'm not judge kicking (you can make arguments for why this should change though)
K: I love K debates. Please don’t just throw in a random K because you think I really like Ks (good strategy wins rounds, not cool arguments). I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. I probably haven't read the lit you're talking about in the K, so just assume that I haven't and make a concerted effort to explain it to me.
K Affs: go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you.
Case Debate: I love good case debate, it's really a lost art now. If you're a good case debater, you should rely on that with me in the back of the room-- it will help you and your speaks out a ton.
Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible (if you are being racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, etc. it's an auto-loss with 25 speaks each). Speed is cool, just make sure you're being inclusive-- I also flow on paper because I'm not the quickest on a computer so you'll probably want to give me some pen time on tags and analytics.
General assumptions I have before coming into round:
PICs are fine
Condo is fine, but it's on thin ice (this may just be my small school brain talking, but a lot of modern conditionality practices are blatantly indefensible and a good condo shell could help you out in front of me if you can win that debate)
I typically start theoretical questions from a "reject the argument" mindset-- I need a well warranted argument as to why I should reject the team to overcome this
prompting/open CX is generally fine, but if it's overused it could result in speaker pnts docked
Disclosure is good, but I will not vote on it if either 1) the other team doesn't disclose for safety reasons or 2) if the other team isn't allowed to/doesn't know what the wiki is
I will vote on RVIs, however if you make me vote on an RVI and it's not the only way you could've won the round you will lose speaker points
Pre-fiat arguments second
Post-fiat arguments third
Most of these assumptions are subject to change from round-to-round depending on the args in round
The only rules of debate are the speech times
My ideas on debate were shaped by: Jeremy Hutchins, John Anderson, Tony Wyatt, and Michael Donaldson-- if you like these judges you'll probably like me as a judge
I'm traditionally a policy debater, but I have competed in many a value round and know more than enough to judge this activity. That being said, I typically find myself more engaged in progressive LD rounds than traditional rounds but please just run the round however best suits you and your style of argument. I love comparative analysis, impact calc, and rounds where there is a lot of interaction between y’all’s arguments. You can go as fast as you want. My off case positions remain pretty close to the exact same as policy, so you can scroll up to get a more in depth look at those specifically.
I typically find myself using the framework of the round as a heavy component when making my decision, so use your value and criterion strategically-- make comparisons, tell me why your opponents framing is wrong, and tell me why I should care about your impacts through the lens of your value, debaters that do that work usually have an easier time winning my ballot.
If the values in the round are the same, or if there's no sort of clash on values for why I should pref one over the other then I typically find myself defaulting to looking for offense and defense on the flow. I'm probably a bit more flow oriented than some other judges you might see, I pay very close attention to my flows and if there's not an argument on it then it's not in the round. That being said; having good case structure, signposting, and line-by-line really helps yourself out with me.
I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.
I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.
Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?
Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.
K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.
Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.
My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:
1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?
2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?
3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?
Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.
I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.
AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!
Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.
Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.
I'm a stock issues judge. However, in general, the affirmative should have a robust plan text. Just repeating the resolution is NOT a plan. It may be included in the solvency, but I'm looking for a legitimate plan. I'm not looking for a vague semblance of what we should do, but what exactly we need to do to solve the problem.
Negatives I don't take a card dump as good refutation/proving their case is flawed. Show me the cards uniquely link. Generic arguments are awful.
It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:
Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.
Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.
Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.
Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.
Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.
Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.
Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.
I'm a tab judge and am completely open to judging based on how the debaters tell me to. I am open to all types and styles of arguments, from topicality to Kritiks. If debaters say nothing about the framework used in the round, I will default to a policy making framework, if you run something like a performance aff, etc., I expect you to flesh-out framework for me. At end of round I'm evaluating your offense/defense vs. your opponents. This is the easiest way for me to judge the round, with as little intervention as possible, I'm looking to hear generally how the aff is a net improvement over the status quo. From the negative I'm looking to hear how the aff is a net negative, or how it fails to affirm the resoultion.
Did Policy and LD in high school. PF for some time as well. My preferences as far as CX and LD are pretty similar. Did policy and parli in college. Coached LD and Policy in the past. Arguments that I frequently had students run were obscure kritiks, hard-policy affs, impact turns. I have always been a huge believer in the linebyline.
As far as policy, I ran policy arguments more than kritikal arguments, but as I got later in my career developed more of a preference for the K. That said, I really love good policy debates.
On the K, I expect some time to be spent on framework if it's expected for me to evaluate it through something other than the traditional way. I've been judging a lot more kritikal rounds in LD and CX than I have in the past. Frequently I find that when i vote for kritik debaters it's because they do a better job on the k-proper/linebyline debate as well as framework. Especially so if they are making good link-level arguments(not generic), RTB args. and k turns case. Explain how you get "solvency" or offense off-of the Alt. Being nebulous about the alt is generally a bad thing and frequently issues arise in k debate if this is neg strategy. I welcome the 1-off k strat, or k-affs.
Used to go for T a lot. That said, I usually advise debaters to go for T if there's an abuse story. In general have a high threshold for voting on T. If neg, extend that t is a voter, and internal link it to fairness, education, etc.
I assume condo is cool. I assume PICs are cool. I even think multiple CPs are cool (you would have to win on the theory level if Aff contests multiple CPs). Perms I assume are ok.
I encourage you to read theory if you want. I enjoy meta-debates. I especially enjoy if you put a lot of your own work into it.
Disads, you win me over if you run specific links or run multiple disads with different terminal impacts. Aff gets points for putting offense onto disads or explaining how case outweighs, or how aff solves the disad.
Affs get wins from me when they kill it on the case debate. Affs get some lee-weigh in the tight rebuttals if they're efficient and avoid drops.
I like offense from both sides. Somewhat related: recently I've found myself voting on presumption if aff drops the ball. I guess this makes some statement about what aff is obligated to do, namely defend the resolution by proving it true via 1ac. If there's some late level question about the round I may be looking at the viability of presumption. If neg tells me to vote on it, I may if there is some doubt about what aff is doing, and whether they're hitting the threshold.
Stylistic/ other things:
I am very decent keeping up with high speed.I flow the analytics as best as I can. That said, if you rush through standards one after the other, I may miss something. Adjust your pace, sign post more, be extra clear here. Generally though, I can count on two or three fingers the number of times a debater has gone too fast on theory for me.
It is very helpful to tell me what is offense and defense, this just avoids the round getting too muddy and means I adjust your speaks upward for communicating better, and for better understanding how your arguments function.
In rebuttals I generally expect things to get more big picture, in the 1ar and 1nr with drops being pointed out. I expect some level of pre-empting your opponents arguments esp. if you are the 2nr. And then finally, I expect impact calc, weighing, and some sound defense strategy (impact mitigation, timeframe, risk, magnitude, etc).
I sometimes give out 30's but generally best speakers at any given tournament get in range of 29.5-29.9. I try to keep in mind the level of competitiveness of the tournament when giving speaks, but also, try to give consistent speaks.
Things that impact me giving high speaks:
Lack of prep taken/ good use of prep time.
Being fast and efficient. Avoiding rehashing stuff that you're obviously winning and instead explaining the weight of that argument and moving on. Knowing what your cards say without having to go look.
Flowing. If cross-x is asking what number 6 argument opposing team made in the speech, I'm assuming your not flowing.
Numbering arguments, clear sign-posting, overviews, underviews, impact calc, roadmaps, referring to cross-x.
Clarity and not just looking at computer the whole time. Being sufficiently loud.
Good use of cross-x, which is underrated. I'm not sure why people don't do this, but in cross-x you can read opponent's evidence, ask about warrants in the card (sometimes they're not there), and author quals.
Kicking arguments strategically or going for something unconventional.
Using logic, analyzing evidence (looking for warrants in the cards), or a good line-by-line. Also, if neg: covering the 1AC, as opposed to generic off-case heavy strats. On case argumentation seems to be a dying art, which is sad, but as the neg if you do a good job covering case in my book it goes a long way. Aff: being super organized, grouping arguments, etc, especially in rebuttals. Handling the 2ac well is also something that helps. If you're doing a 2ac without prep and the speech is super-methodical I'm going to notice.
Being polite to opponents. Being aggressive is ok, but use best judgement.
Having fun, making jokes or demonstrating your knowledge of the topic.
I like impact turn debates and conversely impact defense, these are a great way to deviate the round from typical tropes, and can be very engaging.
I will never give you an L if I didn't like your way of debating or what you said. But if you require me to somewhat intervene in the round because of a poor debate I will give low point wins. I've given low point wins before to teams that did the better job strategically but had issues articulating things. If you cross the line as far as politeness, again, I will give VERY low speaks. Generally though, that's only happened 4-5 times in 8 years of judging for me.
LD has gotten more policy-oriented. I have no issue with this. I do see some strategic issues if a 1ar spends the majority of the speech reading cards. Conversely I see issues with a 1nc with too many cards and not enough of a linebyline.
I don't think I've ever evaluated/ decided a round off a framework flow unless it had something to do with a K/ K aff being ran. You can concede framework if you want I just need to how your offense gets some access to some framework. What I'm suggesting is not undercovering contention level arguments and the linebyline.
Something that really makes it easier for me to evaluate the round is organization: numbering arguments, roadmaps, signposting, overviews, underviews. Being very clear about where you are on the flow at any time.
There is a tendency for blippy arguments to be hidden in the framework, or as underviews. the only way I can vote on them is if they are extended and impacted out.
I'm really not sure what has happened on the cutting edge of LD since getting out of high school. I know that theory/ framework debates have gotten to be more commonplace, with the utility of some of this theory questionable at best. Since then I've judged a lot of theory heavy, k heavy and policy rounds; i would say I have not judged many of these "tricks" rounds. Arguments are arguments, and they all function the same way, generally, what I'm suggesting is avoid the buzzwords and tell me the function of the argument.
As far as theory, I have voted on all sorts of theory arguments, but they have to be impacted, and i have to know how they are voting issues. Can't ever remember voting on disclosure theory.
Usually i vote for the team that communicates better, of course they should be making the better arguments, but communication and persuasion are so important. In rebuttals I need to know about drops and hear some sort of weighing. I'm not in the camp that wants a card for every argument, speech times are already so short in PF. Go as fast as you want but realize that going faster may just make the debate more messy.
If you want to know what you can do to have a better chance at winning: extend evidence, talk about warrants, compare your evidence to your opponents'.
As a debater I had a lot of success in congress. I view congress as being an adversarial, somewhat extemporaneous event where you make good arguments backed by evidence and logic. Knowledge of parliamentary procedure is a definite plus, and I am looking for engagement and responsiveness regardless of what speech it is in the cycle. In other words, clash matters highly in congress, especially because speeches can tend to get stale pretty quickly if there are not (new) original arguments being made.
I prefer to not be involved in email chains or document sharing but sometimes I slip up and look at the speech documents. Avoid clipping cards--this is a breach of debate ethics and could result in loss of the round if there is a repeated pattern of doing it. I prefer that debaters self-police any ethical issues, and direct my attention to the issue while the round is happening, then I'll try to resolve the issue.
I am blank slate. tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.
I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.
As Don Draper once said, "Make it simple, yet significant." The more understandable and well thought out your argument is, the higher points you will land, and therefore most likely higher in the room. Please do not drag on a speech, and be confident when you speak!
I am in the round to be a judge rather than a participant in the Debate, therefore I am going to listen to any argument with full attention. I would say I lean towards policy in my paradigm, but will listen to anything you want to try. Have fun, be respectful in the room, and show me a good round!
Go as fast as you want IF your opponents are ok with speed. I will have no issue about clearing you if it is unclear/too fast and I will not vote on arguments that I didn't get on my flow.
Please have cut cards ready. Two minutes to find evidence, then it's dropped.
The quality of your debate will be judged on presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique.
Weighing tells me what the most important argument is. I will look first to whichever argument is weighed the best. At that point, I look to who links into it. Terminal defense takes out the link - even if you win weighing, you still need to win your link. Weighing is not the end all be all of debate. If one team wins weighing but concedes defense, and the other team loses weighing but actually wins their link, I will vote for the second team, as that's the only team with offense on the flow. Have Fun :)
I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.
I am a tech>truth and flow judge. I am okay with spreading during your speeches however as I am a flow judge I will vote on arguments that I have on my flow sheet, with that being said please be mindful of the clarity of your speech and arguments. Please have your cards ready when asked to present by the team so that there is no unnecessary time wasted. Make sure to not only focus on the argument presented but also the deliverance of your speeches. Give me an off-the-clock roadmap before going into a speech.
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.
LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.
PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.
I have 4 years of experience in debate + a 2 year judging experience. I do prefer actual policy debate over K debate, but that does not mean I won't value the K or any of form of arguments, as long as it is well explained and relevant to the round.
I am basically open to anything.
Speed is fine. I value all forms of arguments but I do like clash, especially in terms of framework, impact calc and solvency.
In addition, I will not assume anything for a specific team in terms of argumentation. If it is not said in round, I will not consider it.
I have been coaching all debate events for the past 8 years.
I'm a stock issues judge. I prefer traditional formatting and style of debate. I love to see a lot of framework debate in LD. I do understand at TFA tournaments a more progressive style is the norm. I will judge progressive rounds fairly and will not vote against someone because they are more progressive. I just prefer traditional.
I will not vote on Ks. I do not like to see them in round.
I'm not a fan of spreading. I have found that in a virtual format it is next to impossible to understand you when you are spreading. I don't mind if you are speaking fast and clearly.
Respect and professionalism are important to me. There is no reason to be disrespectful to your opponent. Professional language is important for you to be credible in a round. I don't like to hear ums, uhs, likes in rounds. This is a speaking event as well as a debate event and I want to hear excellent speaking.
I've been coaching congress for 8 years. I have coached UIL, TFA, and NSDA state/national qualifiers.
Clash is what I look for the most.
I hate re hash. I do not rank people who do not bring new information into the round. I think 45min is a great time cap for debate on each piece of legislation. That helps prevent rehash and allows for better debate.
I appreciate representatives moving to previous question when the debate turns into only re hash. I very rarely rank representatives who break the aff neg cycle.
Quality of speeches is more important than the quantity. I do want representatives to be really active in the chamber. I want to see great content and great presentation. Content and presentation are equally important to me. Keep content organized and clear. Speed should be slow and clear. I do not like yelling in a congress speech.
Remember to have fun and enjoy the round! As a judge I'm always rooting for you to do your best and enjoy the debate. :)
UIL LD: Direct clash is the most important thing. If I cannot flow your attacks and rebuttals, I will not be able to judge the round efficiently. Tell me what you want me to vote on. Tell me when your opponent drops your case. Do not assume I will "get it" or "figure it out." Do not ignore the criterion. Know what framework is, how to use it, and when to debate over it. If I cannot vote on framework, I will resort to on case argument (Contention) so make sure you know your case and not just how to read it. USE ALL YOUR PREP TIME.
CX: I'm a policy maker judge. I don't mind spreading. Yes, I want to be included in the email chain (email@example.com), but I prefer Speechdrop. I am biased on impact but have been known to vote on timeframe and significance. I am not a fan of Topicality arguments as time suck. I'm probably not going to prefer your definition unless you can show in the shell there is a serious problem that skews the debate. Uses rebuttal to crystalize the round and avoid unnecessary summary - VOTERS are a must. I DO NOT vote on CX. That is for you to get an advantage on your opponent through inquiry.
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.
In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, If I am part of the email chain then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision.
Counter plans & disadvantages great.
I'm up for just about anything when it comes to arguments. Run what you feel comfortable running. I prefer the debaters to tell me what they want the round to look like. If you leave it up to me I will vote almost exclusively on framework but I also like to hear good impact calc. Not a big fan of speed at all. If you are spreading then you aren't trying to win my ballot. If I can't follow you then I won't flow the arguments. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Please include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org