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 - I currently judge in/around Austin, primarily.
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 flows, 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.
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 they function 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!
If emailing about a specific round, let me know the tournament, round, your name, and what the 2NR was (it helps me remember more about the debate/find any docs I have saved).
I vote off of structure, analytics, and impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Clash is very important, so highlight on that.
Make sure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right, just persuade me why I should care and vote for you.
Always give “voters”, or reasons as to why you think you won the debate, just provide reasonable points as to why along with them.
I’m great with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, just don’t go overboard to where you do too much that you can't keep up.
I have a background in both tradition and progressive LD, and PF is very common where I am from. If I am judging policy, I can keep up and understand the actions of the round, but I in no way enjoy being in a policy round.
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 a first year law student at Texas Law.
I was primarily and LP'er (limited preparation fan -- extemp and impromptu) and PA'er (public address superfan) 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.
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. During the world of online speech, you may time yourself.
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!
Short version: I’m pretty tab, run whatever is comfortable to you. Speaks will be docked for rudeness.
Hello! I was a 4 year policy debater with extensive experience in most major circuits in Texas, and I compete in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State currently, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I am comfortable with whatever you’d like to do. I’m very tab, but if there’s absolutely NO work done towards a rotb or rotj (or theory), then I tend to default policymaker. I value pretty much every argument, and (without blatant abuses of this power) I usually go for tech over truth. Here are some more in depth looks at how I evaluate different arguments:
T: 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, I typically give leniency towards grouping standards like limits and bright line (as they are essentially the same), but dropping the T, or heavily conceding huge chunks of it is pretty much an automatic win for the neg. 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. If you run T in the 2nr, it probably shouldn’t be weighed down by other arguments, but that’s ultimately up to the debaters. TVAs are ideal, and RVIs are fine (please give me a good reason to vote on an rvi tho).
DA: disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides), and I’m fine with disads that aren’t terminal. 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. I’d like to see framework tacked on to the disad if you’re hitting a soft left/k aff, because of you have no framework and they do it’s pretty much an auto loss.
CP: counter plans are great when used with disads/turns/internal net benefits. I’m fine with PICs, and will vote on PICs with only a solvency deficit as the NB if given no other option. 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).
Theory: you can pretty much copy and paste what I said about T onto here. Theory is a great tool when used legitimately, or just as a way of overloading the aff flow so they have to spend less time on bigger argument in the block. I actively enjoy deep theory debate, but encourage you to stay away from it if it’s not your style.
Framework: This is what wins rounds for me. Any sort of framing of the round helps me write my ballot and establishes what I’m voting for definitively. If you drop framework, you will not win (except in certain circumstances where there’s more pressing arguments). In framework debates, don’t just read cards back and forth at each other, give me reasons why your way of evaluating the round is better, and tell me why I should circle your name at the top of the ballot.
K: I love K debates, but I completely understand if you’re not super comfortable with K. Please don’t just throw in a random K because you think I really like Ks (don’t do that with ANY argument you’re not comfortable with). I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. There HAS to be framework on the K, or you HAVE to prove to me why the alt works better than the aff (or the perm). I think that a 2nr is much more streamlined when you have either the framework or the alt, rather than both (however this is YOUR debate, do whatever is comfortable to you). Crazy Ks are super cool, and fun to run/judge, but if there's not a solid link chain explained then I'm pretty quick to buy into a no link argument on these kinds of Ks.
On Case: should be in every round
K Affs: go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you
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. Speed is cool, I’ll say clear if you’re too quick, you should probably slow down on what you want me to write down.
yes, I wanna be in the email chain: email@example.com
Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round.
I don't have a ton of experience in LD, but I know enough to judge. I'm from policy debate, and so I typically get more engaged in progressive LD rounds, but you should 100% run the round how you feel comfortable running it. I know this section of my paradigm is really short, but definitely feel free to ask me questions pre round. Also, speed is fine, and my opinions on off case arguments stay the same between policy and LD, so if you have questions specifically pertaining to that section of debate, scroll up or feel free to ask me pre round.
Just read the LD paradigm and replace "LD" with "PF". I will say "aff" and "neg" to make things easier on me and my flow.
I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but also 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. 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.
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.
my mom is a retired debate coach. I am product of her lol. 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.
My paradigm is going to be pretty simple, I want good arguments to be made. I am not looking for you to try and make extremely complex arguments that are going to confuse the rest of the room in order to escape any good questions being asked during the questioning period. 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!
CX: Policy, not a huge fan of K’s. Don't spread unless comprehendible
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.
Set a good standard at the beginning of the debate. Make it clear who the winner of the debate will be based on whether or not you or your opponent successfully argues and accomplished whatever your stated burdens are.
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 abuse.
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 6 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'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.
LD - Maintain clear goals. Tell me what you want me to value in your round. I am just as likely to vote on value as on impacts/warrant. Although I do like to see purposeful clash, I do not weigh my vote on your CX time. Learn something new to strategize and apply it to your attacks.
Not a fan of Kritiks in LD, but spreading is fine.
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.
I am relatively new to critical debate. I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritics and how they impact the debate.
Counter plans & disadvantages great.
I am open to any and all arguments as long as you know how to run them. I hate spreading. Talking fast is one thing but if I can't understand you then I won't flow it. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. Debate at the core is a communication event and I need you to communicate your arguments to me. I will vote on virtually anything so I want you to tell me what you want me to vote on. VOTERS ARE KEY.
Public Forum Debate Philosophy
In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.