Ex-PF debater (out rounds at Nats 2017), now work at a think tank in DC.

For prelim rounds: Please get to the virtual room as soon as possible. Pre-flowing and prepping are understandable but please don't intentionally wait until the last minute possible to join.

1. I would really prefer you not to spread. Especially in Public Forum. Getting four contentions into your speech that I have half-written on my flow is a lot worse than one very clear, well-explained contention.

2. That being said, I am a flow judge. So I will vote on how well you weigh, collapse, defend, etc. which also means that both teams need to be doing these things in rebuttal, summary, and FF

3. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

4. SIGNPOST. Please do. It really makes my life so much easier, and it also makes your speeches A LOT clearer. If an opponent drops an argument, signpost for me and then just say to extend it on the flow. You don't need to re-explain the whole argument for me if your opponent did nothing to contend it.

5. Be ready BEFORE THE ROUND to share evidence with your opponents. That means the full article, PDF, in addition to the cut card is what you should be ready to share as well as where in there you found it. Read evidence at your own risk. If something your opponent reads sounds questionable, CALL FOR IT! I'm probably not going to call for evidence unless I literally can't believe someone wrote whatever they said. If you are going to call out your opponents' evidence for their source or because they misquoted, do so in an educated manner (i.e. not just because you think it's "bad"). At that point, I will probably look at the evidence at the end of the round.

6. Do NOT flow through ink, drop opponents' arguments in rebuttal (unless that's an intentional, strategic move), try and provide offense in the first rebuttal, bring up a new argument in FF/bring up new evidence in FF. It's not that I'm going to automatically drop you if this stuff happens, but none of these things help move the debate forward for you or for me. With younger debaters, I understand it a lot more if this stuff happens during the round.

7. I do not flow CX. CX is a time for each person/team to set up defense or offense in future speeches. So, if something important comes up, I would assume it would be mentioned in later speeches (i.e. it should be mentioned in later speeches). More for you than for me, I would stay away from using CX time for your opponent just to explain an argument from their case.

8. I abide by the whole "if it's in FF, it needs to be in summary" broadly. So, don't bring up a contention in FF that your opponent didn't bring up in summary. But, the speeches shouldn't be identical, you should provide some sort of new analysis or weighing within the contentions that your opponent brought up in summary as long as it's not new evidence.

9. In LD, if you run theory or Ks, I am not familiar with these arguments from my time debating or the years I have judged so far. So, you will need to really EXPLAIN these for me and break down why they are essential to the round we are in. Based on that then, run them at your own risk. In PF, don't run theory or Ks.

10. Will always disclose at the end of rounds unless I am specifically instructed not to. Feel free to ask any questions for clarity or for advice.

11. Be respectful, please. I understand the nature of competition pits one side against the other. Respectful doesn't mean you should let your opponents walk all over you, but it does mean there needs to be thoughtfulness in what you do. This typically becomes most important during CX. A general example is, it's okay to cut someone off if they've answered your question and are just explaining their case to me (unless that was the question you asked) because there's strategy to making sure CX doesn't become a soap box for your opponent just to have a second case reading. BUT do not cut your opponent off if you asked them a question, and they are providing analysis to their answer. YOU asked the question, and for the most part YOU need to be okay with them giving a complete answer.

Hey everyone! My paradigm is not that complex, but if you have any questions please ask before the round starts.

CCHS '20

NYU 24'

add me to the email chain: louisciano1@gmail.com

Simple Answer: I'm a flow judge who can understand circuit args if you over-explain them a tad more then you usually would.

Back round info:

I did LD for four years of high school mostly at the local level. I am from North Carolina so I am mainly used to traditional debate. I debated on the national circuit mostly for fun..

Speaks:

I'm generous. Don't be mean.

CX:

Clarification questions are ok, but not the purpose of Cross. I think cross can make or break a round because it shows who knows the material better. If someone is wasting your time, tell them to stop. If they don't I will notice.

Speed: ok with speed

prep-time:

Cards: Prep starts when they show you the card. You have to run the clock when you get the card.

Questions: It's ok to ask questions during prep, but do it more for clarification than anything, I'm not going to flow these, so don't be like "my opponent said this during prep". Also, make sure both of you are ok with it before the round starts.

Framework:

I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. I basically only ran util in high school, so if you have a really confusing framework you might want to warrant it a lot (sorry). That doesn't mean only run until. Please mix it up just make it good.

Arguments:

warrant your arguments. So many people just spit out a bunch of random evidence without a warrant. If you do this, I will give it little credibility and won't take it as super good evidence. If your opponent doesn't call it out, that still doesn't mean you win the ballot.

Theory:

I am not super familiar with theory, so it might be a little hard for me to evaluate it. That being said if there is clear abuse, run it, and warrant why. I will vote off of theory if I think you used it correctly. If you are going against a traditional kid don't run theory to just win the round. I will vote off of it, but I won't give you high speaks.

K Debate:

I never ran K's in high school, but I really like them. That being said, Please make sure the K is topical and not just some generic K. When I see that I see someone being lazy. Don't be lazy and write original arguments. Again, not super familiar with K's, but I will do my best to evaluate them.

Phil:

I'm pretty familiar with it, but if you say someones name don't expect me to have read all their books. Again just make it clear for me.

If you have any other questions, please ask.

I prefer that there is not speed talking in rounds

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts. For email chains: anguse@live.unc.edu. I did LD for four years with North Meck HS and NCSSM. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and Math at UNC.

General

- Speed is fine up to the point where you have to resort to breathing techniques. This does not mean go the same speed you would and cause yourself to pass out.

- Especially in circuit debate – post rounding is a-ok by me. I know I don’t have as much experience with circuit LD, and so the more feedback I get and engagement on my judging, the better I think I am going to be in the future for it.

- I know this makes me sound super lay, but like, PLZ do not read me whatever boring stock util. case you have prepped for lay judges, I hear about enough of this on the local circuit – I want to see something exciting.

-Your job is to write my ballot for me.

Authors I am very comfortable with: DnG, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Foucault, Kant, Adorno.

Intervention

I take as minimal an approach to judge intervention as possible. However, there are certain standards for what I just will not accept:

-New in the 2; I won’t drop you but I don’t flow new arguments in the 2. Not flowing it means it didn’t happen.

-Blatantly false claims: racism good, climate change not real, etc.

Plans and CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of these sorts of debates but I’ll certainly put up with it. Just make sure you execute well.

Policy vs Policy: Compare evidence quality (authors, methodology, sample size, etc.). I could not possible care less about the number of cards you have compared to your opponent.

Topicality: CPs must be competitive. There are a few ways I have seen this violated:

- CP: do the AFF except some absurdly minimal aspect;

- CP not mutually exclusive with the AC

- Resolution doesn’t spec. an actor, but the CP only changes the actor. This is especially relevant to ACs which don’t provide a plan. This is just a more specific case of the first example and – I think – a more egregious violation.

Additionally, please give cards for T; I won’t drop you if you don’t, but your speaks will probably suffer. The more absurdly technical the T debate, the better. Conditional CPs are immensely cringe. I’m also fine with Nebel T, watching people cry about how they might not be able to read an absurdly specific plan is hilarious.

K Debate

I’m most comfortable with Cap Ks, but if you read me cards from Tankies, Maoists, or the like… RIP your speaks. An important note in K debate is please do not try to obfuscate your way to victory.

- Signpost and go line-by-line.

- The more explicit the link the better.

- What does the K do or accomplish concretely? (K-Affs especially)

- Unless it makes sense in lieu of your FW, I’ll prolyl dock your speaks for reading me HuffPo, etc.

- Give a framework for the K!

- If you struggle with providing examples when asked in CX, it probably tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll give you 30 speaks if you read some Neg-Dialectics K about how you should always negate because affirming always traps concepts in a fashion which runs opposite to the dialectical Idea of truth. It would be really funny and would make my day.

FW Debate

I’m probably most comfortable with this. I did a lot of Kant FWs in my time, so I’ll be very comfortable with those. Consequently, I am fine with the idea of not having impact calculus – but only in rounds where you have demonstrated that consequences need not be considered; the default in debate seems to be some sort of util.

I am not a fan of testing the plausibility of a theory based on how a majority of people feel about it (something about Ideology and so on and so forth *sniff*).

Meta-ethics are dope and cool.

I will not penalize you on neg. for just going insane on reading turns and conceding FW, unless you do something insanely stupid like concede a Kant FW and then read impact turns (which I have seen people do). Like???

LOCAL TOURNAMENTS: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WARRANT YOUR FW IN A SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. If you don’t, do not expect to get above a 28.

Theory Debates

Go ahead, but I don’t have a lot of experience here so don’t be surprised if it goes bad for you (I mean it will still be my fault, but just know it’s likely to happen). If you do read theory: PLEASE stay away from jargon! I am putting in the work to better understand the evaluation of theory debates, but I’m not quite there.

Spikes: fine. A prirois: cringe. NIBs: cringe. Burdens: fine. Triggers: cringe. I’m not chill with RVIs just yet until I feel I have a better handle on them. Sorry .

Hi,

I am a parent judge and would request that you consider following to help me judge this in most effective manner.

Speaking:

1. SPEAK SLOWLY

2. Don't be rude or offensive in the round

3. Speak with clarity and elucidation

4. ALWAYS signpost and roadmap: it makes it much clearer for me as a judge if I know what you're talking about

Argumentation:

1. I am NOT familiar with counterplans, theory, or kritiks so please don't run them or I won't be able to judge you appropriately.

2. Summary and FF consistency is important when evaluating arguments

3. Have impacts and WEIGH. Too many times have I seen debaters just say we win because of X argument while never explaining why that argument is the most important to evaluate in the round.

4. Please don't run crazy and difficult to understand arguments. If your opponents can't understand the argument, I probably can't too. If you do have a less common argument, please warrant it and provide ample evidence, and I might be able to understand it.

Evidence:

1. I appreciate citations (Author's last name, month and year, and source if you can).

2. Please don't lie about your evidence; if you are, I most certainly won't vote for that argument.

3. I will call for evidence if it becomes an important point of dispute in the debate.

4. I am a strong believer in quality > quantity. Meaning, don't tell me you win because you have more evidence, tell me you win because your evidence is more reliable

5. I usually flow arguments, not evidence, so telling me to refer back to some random person isn't sufficient.

I am a lay judge with some experience in public forum and speech, and limited experience in Lincoln Douglas and Congress.

Please don’t spread or do anything that would make it hard for me to understand you.

Tell me why you are winning, tell me what’s important, don’t make it hard for me to figure that out. WEIGH.

If you have a speech document and are comfortable with sharing it, that would ensure that I do not miss anything you say.

My email is djacobs@mytruloan.com if you want to share anything.

I have been judging and coaching primarily LD, PF, and Policy debate for the past 28 years.

My preference is a moderate style of debate. Although, I can, and will keep up at any speed. I flow while judging and therefore appreciate the use by competitors of signposting.

Clearly state your Value Premise and Value Criterion. Let me know how they are related. And, be sure that your observations/contentions relate to your VP and your VC.

Be aware that definitions are important. An opponent may win a round by emphasis on the definitions of one or two key words in the resolution.

I am currently the debate coach at Middle College High School at Durham Technical Community College, a position that I have held since 2005. I started my debate coaching in 1997 at Hillside High School in Durham, NC. And, I was the first paid faculty debate coach at East Chapel Hill High School in the year 2000 under the leadership of principal Dave Thaden.

Education:

UNC-W (MALS) Master of Arts in Liberal Studies.

UNC-CH (NC Teach Graduate Program) Major, Education.

UNC-CH (BA) Subject Major, American History.

International Baccalaureate Certificate in North and South American History -

Nashville, TN

Victoria, Canada

Certified in Personal Financial Literacy from www.wise-ny.org/

I am a patent judge with several rounds of experience judging debate events. I am the typical “lay judge”. However, I am more than capable of evaluating strength of argumentation and evidence when deciding who has won the round. Please make sure your arguments and evidence are clear.