Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

This is my first year as a debate coach and judge. I have a degree in Philosophy, and am experienced at considering the merits of arguments outside of the NSDA format.

I would consider myself a traditional judge; enunciation and clearly articulating fewer points is more effective than spreading to cover more ground. More importantly, if I can't follow your argument because you are speaking so quickly, I cannot and will not consider those points in weighing the round. Per NSDA guidelines, style and delivery is less important than substance, but if your substance is not conveyed because of your style, than it becomes relevant by default.

To that point, I prefer a rebuttal that is organized similarly to the opponent's argument rather than jumping around. Your argument is more effective if it is methodical. I don't believe that an argument is won by quantity over quality, so if you tell me that your opponent has dropped a point, tell me why that point matters. If it isn't as significant as the points your opponent successfully argues, than it doesn't matter that they dropped it.

Finally, I am not impressed by slippery-slope arguments that build a long chain of improbable events to conclude that your opponent's case leads inevitably to cataclysmic results. Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and just because, for example, nuclear war is possible does not mean it is guaranteed or even plausible. You must articulate good evidence that it is likely.

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I will try to evaluate the flow as technically as I can. I care more about the debating that took place than what I think about the ultimate truth of your arguments or relative quality of your cards. I do think you should try to match your opponents cards with better cards, but you first have to convince me that your opponents have dropped crucial warrants and explain why those matter. For example, maybe none of the aff's advantages about space-based solar power come to grips with this one implementation problem; you have cards that speak to that issue, they do not. I'd rather you explain to me these comparative points than present dueling taglines and leave it up for me to wade through.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project, or explain why you shouldn't have one. This doesn't have to be state-based but I think you need to describe how your advocacy would, if adopted more widely, change things that happen outside of debate. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Have competed in LD, PF, Policy, and Extemp; have coached LD, PF, Policy, and Parliamentary Debate. Will flow all debates. Hate spreading in all events.

LD: Stats and empirical data are fine but without strong philosophical backing, it will be hard for me to give a win. Prefer applications of philosophical framework that show some level of thought and intuition (I think a Value of Morality is fairly weak and needs an extremely strong VC to be successful).

PF & Parli: Nothing major, but again, no spreading. Require credible sources with actual data — opinion pieces are fine, but much weaker than empirical data. If you try to extrapolate data from a source like multiplying stats incorrectly, then quote them as part of the source, I will give you the loss automatically. It must be very clear what is your own mathematical extrapolation (which is more than likely incorrect), and what is actually part of the original source. If you do not have a piece of evidence cited in your case, you will also automatically receive a loss.

Policy: Do whatever you want.

I am a parent judge, but I do flow and track arguments. I prefer a medium speech pace, please.

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

Email chain, please! jhollihan18@gmail.com

he/him

Policy:

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

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

PF/LD:

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

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

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

Debate coach, past LD debater.

Etiquette and respectful debating is important to me. Being excessively aggressive and rude to your competitor is not acceptable. Be poised and articulate. Do not tab pens or be overly distracting with movements or nervous ticks.

Evidence is essential. Convince me you should win.

Do your best not to drop anything. I take notes and will notice.

CX is for questions and answers.

Clean flow. If your talking speed is rapid, then you must speak clear.

The winner for me will be the debater who presents AND defends a solid, logical case while being able to find and attack weaknesses in their opponent's case.

Overview

My name is Jacob Lantzman (he/him). I competed in Public Forum for all four years of high school while also dabbling in Policy Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and World Schools Debate. I competed in PF, Policy, and World Schools debate at a national level as well as Parliamentary debate on a state level. I am a relatively open judge, I will go for anything that you ask for me to go for, but you need to be able to defend it well both logically and statistically if your form of debate dictates such. If you look below, I give specific paradigms for each form of debate, but I'll highlight a couple of general key paradigms for me:

- I am not afraid to drop you on civility, or lack thereof. Debate is a great place for civil discourse on some of the most topical resolutions in current events. It is paramount that you are civil and polite to everybody involved in the round (your partner, your opponents, your judges). Throughout my time debating, I faced a fair share of debaters that were bullies in round and were incredibly uncivil. There is a difference between passion and lack of civility, it's very easy from a judge's perspective to see the difference. I don't care if you have the best constructive, best cards, best rebuttals in the history of debate, if you're uncivil in round, I will not hesitate to drop you.

- I am not going to keep track of your time for you. Keep track of your own prep time and speech time. During the round, I want to play the least role as possible so that I can focus on judging you all on the content of the debate to my full ability. If I am judging you for a larger tournament either on the circuit or national events (NSDAs, NCFLs, etc.) then I'll keep track of your time for my own purpose so that I can stop flowing after your time has expired, but I'm not going to stop you from speaking, that is your responsibility. If you are at time and you're in the middle of a sentence, I have no problem with you finishing your thought.

- Most important of all, have fun. This is an incredible extracurricular activity and has helped me throughout my educational and personal careers immensely. Enjoy the time you spend researching and debating because it can be a lot of fun.

Public Forum

- Framework: I am happy to go for any sort of framework that you throw at me. I was a big framework debater and I think it's the most underutilized aspect of Public Forum debate. Use the framework as a way for the judge to evaluate the round. However, this is not Policy or LD debate and I do not support a progressive approach to Public Forum debate, if you don't know what that means then it most likely does not affect you.

- Constructives: Structure your constructives so I know when you move from one contention to the next and can clearly flow that. Structure is a great tool to keep the debate organized and keep it from getting too sloppy.

- Cross Fires: Be respectful, let your opponents answer your questions. I've seen it all too often that a team will ask their opposition a question and then never give them the chance to answer the question without interrupting. I will dock you speaker points and potentially drop you if you continually interrupt your opponents in a rude and disruptive way. The same goes for not letting your opponents speak, the crossfire is not an opportunity for you to grandstand and have another speech in the round, it's so you can find the clash in your arguments. There's no clash if one team talks the whole time.

- Impromptu Speeches (Rebuttal, Summary, FF): Give me an off-time roadmap. I want to know the order of your talking points in your speeches so that I can follow along on the flow. Structure is so important for judges to flow the round.

- I'm not going to drop an opponent's argument just because you tell me to or because they didn't bring it up in a speech. This can be one of the most frustrating things to deal with as a debater, but as long as you don't just bring it up in constructive and not bring it up again until final focus, I'm still going to flow it.

I am a traditional judge.

I would like to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Respect your opponent, no insults.

Updated 11/13/20

TLDR: Do whatever. I haven't been super active the last few years so everything below is probably less relevant now. Make things easy for me and tell me why you're winning in your last speech.

OLD PARADIGM

Debate Experience: I debated for four years in high school reading mostly soft left affs and the cap k, qualifying to the TOC my senior year. I haven't judged a ton on this topic so make sure you explain topicality/ other stuff you might assume I'd know.

Debaters that have influenced me the most: Anthony Ogbuli, Rishi Chebrolu. Check out their paradigms.

Sparknotes Version: Do what you want. This is my first year judging so I don't really know what I like/dislike yet and this paradigm will probably change. Coming from a small school I probably have more respect for a well executed generic than the average judge. Cool with k's, no-plan affs, I really just want to see what you do best. Impact calc can completely turn debates around in the 1ar onward.

Non-policy affs: This was the section that mattered to me most when I was debating. I probably have a slight (52-48) aff bias on the framework question. That said it's still a super winnable argument and was in 95% of my neg blocks in these debates. Negs should use topical version of the aff arguments to neutralize large portions of aff offense. I'm definitely more persuaded by arguments about the educational value of a limited resolution grounded in switch side debate than "policy education good" arguments. Aff teams should challenge neg internal links to neg impacts cause they're usually super poorly articulated. Fairness is an internal link not an impact.

Kritiks: LINKS LINKS LINKS. Especially against non-policy affs if you can give me something better than "they talk about race and that's not class sooo..." you will be rewarded. Find the parts of the aff that you're actually disagreeing with and highlight that for me. References to specific pieces of their evidence/rhetoric are dope. Links are also the best answer to the perm. Dropped turns case arguments from policy affs are pretty devestating. On both sides you should assume you're winning less of the framework debate than you think. Couch these arguments so that even if you don't win your interpretation you can still garner offense on whatever else you have. I went for neolib probably 75% or more of rounds my sophomore year on so I'm pretty familiar with that but please don't read that just for me. Besides cap I'm most familiar with policy and race based kritiks. Not very well read on or experienced with high theory so if that's your thing make sure you clearly break that down for me. Writing the ballot at the top of the 2nr is absolutely necessary for kritiks.

Topicality: I have a burning passion for well executed topicality arguments. A well put together t argument in the block can completely mess up a 1ar's debate. These debates are usually won or lost on the limits question for me. I default to competing interps cause reasonability is rarely explained well.

Disads: Not a lot to say here. Impact calculus is the most important and least well done aspect of disad/case debates from my experience. Big fan of analytical takeouts to obviously stupid links.

CPs: Despite being a 2n I find myself leaning aff on most theory questions. I think aff teams let the neg get away with a stunning amount so feel free to not only run but go for theory. Negs should be prepared to defend why stealing aff ground was justified if pressed on it but no one seems to do that so it probably doesn't matter. Weighing solvency deficits against the risk of the da at the end of the round is not fun so please make that easy for me.

Case Debates: Underutilized. A lot of big stick policy affs have laughable internal links and I'd love to see you go after them in cross-x or with analytics.

Email me at wjmccarthy7@gmail.com with any other questions.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity and are one of the core reasons why policy debate has little value as an educational activity, in my opinion. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk. I have never heard a theory shell run in round that didn't make me feel like I had lost an hour of my life that I will never get back - but hey, there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, and if you don't I'll evaluate it as I see it.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

I vote off the flow. Do not spread.

Hello, I will be your debate judge for this round. But first a couple of tips for me.

- I am a parent judge but I do have some preferences.

- No Progressive Arguments (I won't understand or evaluate them).

- I like stock arguments. It's much easier for you to win my ballot if you run them because I find them the strongest and most logical.

- Talk slowly and no spreading. Everything should be well below 170 wpm.

- Don't use unclean evidence with extremely high/low numbers because it lowers my threshold for buying your argument.

- Be respectful in crossfire.

One could consider me as both traditional parent judge and non-traditional parent coach. When it comes to experience, I have never participated in actual LD debate myself. However, I have a strong interest in philosophy, history and political science and have formal education in these subjects, even though I work as a physician. I am very much involved with coaching my daughter who participates in varsity LD debate. It means that I have spent some time on the topic that you are debating in front of me, and I am very well familiar with most of aff and neg arguments. I leave my opinions at home. However, it is your job as a debater to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Everything matters. You have to explain how you derived your values and criteria from the resolution, provide a framework, construct contentions which connect and re-enforce your framework, demonstrate superiority of your values and criteria via clashes and rebuttals. Non-traditional routes such as debate theory, disclosure, tricks, etc are fine but it will not grant you victory if it is your only strength in the round. You may talk as fast as you want but I have to be able to flow your round. I do not like spreading - it puts emphasis on your ability to talk fast ( perhaps beneficial to your potential career at auction (just kidding)) but takes away the essence of an interesting and constructive debate. If, in my opinion, you are talking too fast. I will let you know. I evaluate your speech skills and ability to think on your feet. You have to present yourself professionally and be courteous to your opponent. Throwing ideological labels and calling your opponent's arguments idiotic, racist, misogynistic, leftists, right-winged, etc will not win this debate. You have to prove your side. That is the point of LD debate. It is an honor to judge your round, and I take this job very seriously. Best of luck. I am looking forward to your debate.

Flow judge. Fast speed is fine but don't spread, be comprehensible. Rebuttal should be well structured. Really want voters and weighing in summary (should not be a second rebuttal speech).

yes I want to be on the email chain: junewearden05@gmail.com

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '18

Pitt '22

WARNING: I have only been peripherally engaged with the immigration topic - if you're going to use acronyms / do in-depth law analysis you're going to have to slow down and explain it to me

When I debated in high school I primarily ran soft-left affs, but I don't (think) I have a strong ideological preference. I'm not going to pretend I'm tabula rasa but there are very few arguments I will a priori vote down. (For instance, I'm never going to vote for racism = good)

As long as you can provide me with a coherent explanation of your world-view and how that relates to what is being said in the round you'll be okay.

If you have questions about more specific arguments/positions feel free to ask.

I’m a traditional judge; framework matters to me because it is the metric by which I judge the round. I can handle spreading.

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

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

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

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

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

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