Brief Background:

Original “Ted Turner” debater, now known as Public Forum Debate. Mainly a Lincoln-Douglas and World Schools judge, but judge all speech and debate events. Currently community judge for Stevens High School, in Rapid City, SD.

General:

+Time yourselves, I will verify if needed.
+Keep the debate flowing, any downtime or off-time road maps more than 10 seconds should be considered prep-time.
+Speed is fine as long as it does not detract from clarity and connection.
+Keep it civil and professional, there exists a line between assertiveness and contempt for decorum.
+Do not rely on esoteric counter plans or kritiks/critiques, while they can be used appropriately, make sure your own case is sound.

LD Debate:

From its roots in the 1858 Senate Race between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglass, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate style is one of adversarial nature. As a Lincoln-Douglass Debate judge I am a purist; focused on logic, ethical values, and clear philosophy. Ultimately, all jargon and style aside, it is your duty to persuade the judge to accept your interpretation of the resolution using: Analysis, Argumentation, and Presentation.

Keep in mind the roots of this debate style, your job is to persuade the judge to your side. This relies heavily on your ability to be a good communicator. Do you connect with your audience? Is your argumentation sound and organized? Is your analysis clear and connected? Present your side however you see fit, I will follow.

Public Forum Debate:

Public Forum Debate is meant to be a more accessible debate format. Keeping true to its foundation you must appeal to your audience through reason, organization, evidence, and delivery. This is a public debate style meant to reach a wide audience. Quality raises over quantity in Public Forum Debate.

Extemporaneous Speaking (And Most Speech Events):

Argumentation, Analysis, Evidence, Delivery. These are my core focuses when judging. First and foremost this is a speech event, make sure to command the room and focus on the fundamentals of speech. The argumentation must be on-topic and the analysis needs to lead to a clear understanding of the topic. Sources should be diverse and naturally sewn into the flow of the speech. Your stance on the topic does not affect my decision, I support all ideas. Be organized and bring your audience along with you.

World Schools

Content, Style, Strategy. It is as simple and as difficult as those three areas. I appreciate that World Schools emphasizes the need for quality style. For years I have argued that if your content and strategy do not connect with the audience, they fall on deaf ears. Content should have sound analysis and logical attachment. True engagement is a key in WS. Take and give those POIs! Otherwise it becomes a dry debate, just reading speeches. Drive the debate and truly listen to each other. Focus on specific issues rather than debate theory or procedural arguments. Did I mention engage? Engage!

I'm the most familiar with LD but I have a decent understanding of all forms of debate. I prefer traditional style debate (no spreading, kritiks, etc.), but if you run it well enough and keep it within reason I don't mind.

LD Specific Stuff-

-While it's technically not required for you to have a value in LD, it will be very hard to convince me you've won the round without one.

-I flow during the round so I am a big fan of signposting so I can keep track of which arguments/contentions you are currently addressing.

-I don't mind speaking fast but spreading is generally not something I enjoy.

-I strongly dislike counterplans so running one will probably get you the loss from me unless your opponent doesn't call you out or something.

LD-

I have coached Public Forum and LD for the past 11 years. I am a "traditional" judge that makes my decision off of the value and criterion. For the value you need to show me why it matters. Simply stating "I value morality" and that is all- is not enough. You need to show how your criterion upholds/weighs that value.

Contentions- need to be won as well. Dropping an entire contention and hoping I forget about it is not a good strat. I like to hear contention level debate as well, but I default to framework debate more often.

Voting Issues- I need these. Make it easy for me to vote for you. Give places to vote and provide the reasoning why. As a judge I should not have to do any type of mental lifting to get myself where you want me to be.

I do not listen to K's, performance cases, counter plans, or DA's. Keep policy in policy. I want to hear a debate about what is "right". For Ks and performance cases- I have very limited exposure to them so I have no idea how to weigh them or how they work in a round. If you run that type of argument you will probably lose that argument on the flow because I do not have enough experience or knowledge of how they work in a debate round.

Flow- I like to think I keep an ok flow. I don't get authors- but I get signposts and warrants.

Speed- I can handle a quick pace. I do not like spreading- especially when you struggle with it. If you are clear and sign post as you go so I know exactly where you are on the flow. I can keep up. When it comes to value debate and criterion- slow down. Kant and Locke are not meant to be speed read. This may be the first time I am hearing this argument.

Flashing- Make it quick.

Oral Comments- I have been verbally attacked by assistant coaches in the room who did not agree with my decision. This has really turned me off from giving oral comments. However, I will address the debaters and only the debaters in the round. will describe how I interpreted the round and what it would have taken to win my ballot. I am not there to re-debate the round with you but I want to offer clarity to what i heard and what I felt was made important in the round.

Public Forum-

I have coached Public Forum for the past 11 years and believe anyone should be able to listen to the round and decide the winner.

I try to keep a solid flow, but I will not get warrant, authors, dates, if you go a lot of points. I want you to boil the debate down to 2-3 major voting issues that are supported in the round with evidence. Closing speeches need to be weighed and if you run framework, you better be utilizing it throughout the debate and not just in the final focus to why you win the round.

I will not listen to speed, (faster than you describing a great weekend debate round to your coach) k's, counter plans, or disadvantages. If you want to run those- policy is available.

hi my name is rachel (she/her) i’m excited to judge (almost always)

chahta yakni | šuŋgmánitu oyáte

dowling 23- i am going to be judging a ton of pf for the foreseeable future! i'm excited to learn more about a different style of debate. however, the way that I approach rounds pretty much never changes. i only care about the arguments on the flow, not speaking style. i highly value framework debate and impact weighing, and i expect that debaters try their hardest in every round. my paradigm might not be very helpful if you're a PF debater, so feel free to ask me questions before the round. gl everyone!

apple valley 22- email chains consistently annoy me. if you can use speech drop i would appreciate it very much.

going forward- i'm not going to clarify a position on my paradigm for only 1 debater- if you want to ask questions, i think it's only fair that your opponent gets the same opportunity. if you want to email me beforehand, either cc your opponent or just wait until everyone is in the room.

Quick Guide if you want to pref me

1- Give back the land (Tuck and Yang, not Churchill)

Debord

Orthodox Marx (i have mixed opinions on Stalin and Mao. I think there are probably better critical theorists who articulate their ideas better, but whatever floats your boat. Lenin is fine, but I'm only really familiar with Imperialism:HSoC. If you read Krupskaya I'll be stoked).

SC authors (Locke especially, Hobbes 2nd and Rousseau 3rd)

Rawls

Socrates/Plato

2- Butler

LARP (i think of this in two ways, either structurally or argument-wise. I'm pretty solid on both, although you'll be better off dropping some hyper-specific policy language because it wasn't what I usually went for as a debater)

Spinoza (this is only at a 2 because I genuinely don't think you could ever make Ethics topical).

Hegel- i mean what can you do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3- Trad/lay (i debated in SD, so go figure).

SOME DnG (I think I get rhizomatic thought, I think I get schizophrenic capital, I don't understand most of the rest of it. Plz be cautious.

Kant- idk man this is run in so many different ways you should just ask.

4- Middle-of-the-road Performance (I have not yet been able to find a debater that clearly articulated how to substantively weigh performance in a round, and I ran performance several times. If you think you can then go off, I'd love to hear it). This includes poems, songs, personal narratives, etc- see "5" for aggressive or emotionally traumatic performance.

"High Theory"- whatever this means, if it's gonna make my brain bleed i'm not a fan.

Chinese Imperial Philosophy: Confucianism, Taoism.

Theory- I'm not a huge fan and I'm bad at flowing it. Like terrible. Please if you do this to me go very slow I will unintentionally drop 50% of your standards. RVIs mostly good. paragraph theory is fine, it just needs clear impacts to the round/debate space.

5- Evola (ill drop you no cap)

Time Cube >:(

skep

social darwinism

badly done death drive (ie "k*ll everyone, nuke war good). Don't justify oppression, don't be rude. Also in here- physical performance or extremely emotional performance. Do not read me trauma-porn.

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

here is a list of things that make me go :) in rounds

1. extending the whole argument (claim + warrant) in every speech

2. warrants that you can actually explain tbh

3. evidence comparison (especially using author quals)

4. when u kick ur F/W and turn their case (that’s spicy stuff)

5. when u run a well articulated Kritikal position that ur excited about and that makes me learn stuff ( although it makes me go :/ if it’s clearly commodifying a people group- ex. don’t facilitate a performance you have no stake in)

6. in general if u teach me something that’s great!!!!

here’s a list of things that make me go :( in rounds

1. you have a captive audience in the round, so don't make the round unsafe for anyone (think the -ists and -phobias). if you do so in a manner that i think warrants it, i will

a. drop kick u off the ballot

b. give u the lowest legal speaks

c. talk to ur coach

d. tell ur mom

2. when ur winning and u rub it in the other person’s face- that is rude stop. not gonna drop ur speaks though- its just annoying.

3. don’t run afro pes if ur non black or anything like that- don’t use other people’s oppression as a gimmick y’all the ballot isn’t worth it

if you take each part of the debate seriously then u should be fine- most people mess up the most when they get too confident

ask me if u want more info i’ll tell u how i feel about anything and i’ll give u time to change it if u need to

my email is rdover2@gmail.com if u need it

u get +.1 speaks if u can diss Andrew Myrick in ur speech and it flows well

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

I am an undergraduate student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in communication studies and political science, with a minor in public policy analysis; this will be my third year judging high school debate. While I personally never debated in high school, I captained my varsity mock trial team for three of four years with championship success and have extensive experience with what constitutes a well-constructed and skillfully presented argument (my college major is literally in rhetoric). Basically, you’re not going to impress me with rapid-fire speaking and cramming citations down my throat; you’ll impress me with a solid and understandable argument.

You can reach me at ssaxon@huskers.unl.edu.

Overall Judging Style

If there are any aspects of the debate I will look to before all others (regardless of the event), they are presentation, framework, and impact. Ensure that you're speaking clearly and at a pace where even a layperson can understand your argument and individual points. Organize things clearly with a defined cause and effect. Fancy jargon and vocabulary are nice, but they're just embellishment. Ensure your bare-bones argument is solid and the rest will fall into place.

Speed will not win you any points with me — I sat through far too many speed-reading-from-notecards powerpoint presentations in my high school days. This is a public address activity; your arguments need to be both substantiated and understandable. I prefer a consistent, metered pace — it allows for a more involved, persuasive, and all-around comprehensive style of speaking and debate. As the presenter, it is your burden to ensure your speech is clear and understandable: the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must do so. That said, I am not unreasonable; if you need to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team presented, that is acceptable, it just shouldn’t be your default setting as a competitor.

Spreading is a pet-peeve of mine. Your job is to prove your argument as thoroughly as possible and parry your opponent's points, not to introduce as many superficial arguments as you can possibly spit out. Spreading is cheap, full stop.

Also, if you want the most accurate, well-rounded judging and the most extensive feedback possible from me, you’d better not be speaking at lightyear speed. Brains don’t work that way.

I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence and its source material are saying, and for the love of Sophocles, look up the pronunciation of formal nouns and places mentioned in your evidence. It’s trivial, but repeatedly mispronouncing words gives the impression you did not do your due diligence in research.

General Things

-I encourage and always allow self-timing, but am willing to keep time for the round if necessary

-Roadmaps are always off the clock for me

-I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground, and someone who is using rudeness as a way to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, you’re doing it wrong

-I like to flow as much as possible, so I appreciate a debater with well-organized and clear signposts

LD Paradigm:

-I briefly debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for OG. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.

- I dislike "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments

- please limit your jargon or buzzwords, especially if you don't know what they mean or how to use them.

- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar so please explain it well.

-be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.

PF Paradigm:

-please don't run a circular framework debate the whole time, i.e. "my framework is a pre-q to theirs". Focus on the contentions and analysis :)

-I love voters and impacts in the final speech

-Speed is okay, but not "policy fast."

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.  

General - I will vote on whichever arguments I buy more. ALWAYS explain the why behind your arguments. I love hearing the phrase "here's why this matters" after you make a claim or present an argument. If I don't buy your evidence, I will call for it. I keep a pretty decent flow so don't be scared to refer to the flow and the points made/dropped. Make sure to tell me where you're at on the flow as well. In every final speech of every style of debate, please give me clear voters. A final general piece of info, please do not be super rude in your rounds. There is a CLEAR line between confidence and just being mean. If you're being mean, I'll find a way to vote you down. I'm all for a little salt every now and then, but make sure it is justified.

Speed - You can go as fast as you want as long as you can articulate well. I was a policy debater for three years so I can handle speed. I won't flow what you're saying if I don't understand you. Additionally, do not go fast just to go fast. Make sure what you're saying actually applies to the debate at hand. Don't read me a disad that has absolutely no link as a timesuck.

Theories/Ks - If you want to read these, go for it. I'm all for hearing it IF it actually applies to the round AND the topic. I will not vote for something that has nothing to do with the topic. I will vote for the other team if you read a K that has absolutely NO link. Debate is supposed to be educational. Therefore, I expect to be educated on the topic. When it comes to specific theories, make sure you explain what they are and WHY you're running them. Your voters better be excellent if you want me to vote on it. I have voted on theory before because of really good voters.

LD - I weigh framework over contention level in the debate. Please for the love of all things do not run a random framework just to run a random framework. It needs to make at least 75% sense in the context of both the topic and the debate. That means you should probably be explaining a clear link to me. Please do not turn LD into a policy or pufo round. They are separate debate categories for a reason.

TOPIC SPECIFIC - If you're going to trash the United States military, please be aware that I am marrying a man in the military and I find it extremely offensive when competitors say ALL US soldiers are bad. For example - please don't tell me that ALL US military soldiers are complicit in human trafficking. Additionally, if you are going to discuss the Israel/Gaza war, please be considerate that all people have different views and that's OKAY!!! Debate is an educational space and I expect everyone in the round to be RESPECTFUL. If I am being screamed at or I feel uncomfortable because you say something offensive on either side of the debate, I will vote you down. Not appropriate for a high school activity.

Stevens High School (South Dakota) '19 | MIT '23

I did five years of high school policy debate. For those not intimately familiar with the (nearly extinct) South Dakotan policy debate circuit, it tended to be more traditional in the earlier years of my debate experience (a K aff was essentially unheard of), and slowly transitioned into a circuit which was more comfortable with K (affs) and national circuit-style debate. This does mean that my preferences for arguments tend to lean towards policy arguments, but I am open to and will vote on anything. It also means that I know very little about the high-theory of various kritiks—if you run these, please use less jargon and more direct, leyman explanations. I am also not distinctly involved with the current debate topics too much, meaning that I will not have an understanding of the zeitgeist of the current topic. This should not hinder you if you explain arguments well, but do note it.

I have mixed feelings about email chains. Too often, I think, they are used as excuses by teams to not actually speak well, signpost, or enunciate. I think the best debaters are ones who actually slow down and perform the rationale of the responses cleanly on the flow, and balance the interplay. I also won't weigh a wall of cards if all of them make essentially the same claim unless you explicitly explain why they are different or important. Quality of evidence over quantity. I would still like to be on the email chain—alanyzhu@mit.edu

Generally, tech over truth—although, of course, your evidence should have warrants. Beyond that, I have one major objection, which is debate math. In my opinion, the source should do the analysis for you if it is a relevant implication from the source, and, as a mathematics major at MIT, it is much harder for me to buy the accuracy of statistical analysis done by non-experts. I do my best to vote entirely on the flow; obviously, as a human being, I can't promise you that my understanding of the world won't seep into my decision, but I will note that the easiest way for you to deter that from happening is keeping the flow nice and clean for me to follow. The more analysis I have to do about whether not a specific argument responds correctly to another one, the more variable the process is. Take the power out of my hands.

T — I like good T debate. However, I think if a negative team is going for topicality, it should be a priori and therefore all 5 minutes of the 2NR. If you have enough doubts on the T flow that you're not comfortable spending all 5 minutes on T, then you probably shouldn't close on it. (Also, unless negative is very, very blatantly abusive, T is not RVI.)

Be nice! Debate should feel like a community. Excluding others or being exasperated with your opponents will not get you good speaks. (In that vein, don't ask me if I am going to disclose/disclose speaks. I will say what I am comfortable with and what the situation calls for.)

I tend to keep prep.

Please ask me more questions so I can add to this paradigm! Future debaters will thank you.