Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. Cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. Please tell me once you have done so (I won't be sitting here frantically refreshing.) Unless there is no other way, I would like to use tabroom share.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I prefer to devote my attention to the content of your speeches rather than focusing on watching the clock, but I can time if needed. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters use it when it isn't necessary and thereby it just serves overcomplicate the round. Please don't do this.If you planning to run dense or tricky theory,you should strike me. However, occasionally theory is necessary to ensure a fair, equitable round (i.e. - your opponent purposely presents a case which is non-topical, etc). I strongly prefer paragraph theory to block theory if you are in such a situation.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I won't fill in the gaps in your explanation/argumentation.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are mean-spirited or otherwise deny the humanity of others. This should go without saying, but this is still a school-sponsored activity, so if you wouldn't raise your hand and say it during school, don't do it here either.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I have judged debate events off and on for almost 40 years.

For my first 15 years, I primarily judged policy debate and only occasionally value debate.

More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) and HIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and Extemp Debate.

Although my initial experience was in policy debate, I do not like high speed. If I am leaning forward to catch everything you are saying or you are gasping for air between utterances, you are talking too fast. If that is the case or you're overwhelming my ability to process information, I will say SPEED. By the same token, if you're speaking is not clear, I will say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if I say SPEED or CLEAR.

Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won (and in assigning speaker points).

In a policy debate, I look to stock issues; in a value debate, I look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I ordinarily look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance of the evidence or similar standard offered by the debaters - at least if no one offers a better way of looking at the debate.

I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise. But I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.

I expect debaters to both make arguments and use logic and evidence. Rarely is one by itself enough.

I dislike when a debater gives me the name of some expert or a sentence and expects me to fill in a lot of blanks.

I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.

I expect debaters to summarize why they won; don't spend so much time refuting arguments that you leave no time to tell me clearly why you won.

In IPDA debate, I do consider the relative ground each debater has to operate in, so it may not be a good strategy for an affirmative debater to attempt to unfairly narrow the ground for a debate. If a debater does a lot with a little ground, they are more likely to win my ballot than a debater who does a little with a lot of ground. Similarly, I find some IPDA topics to be pretty one-sided - and I'll vote for the debater who moved my original thinking the most.

If you run a kritik or counterplan, I expect you to explain it clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the topic/case you're debating. I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.

I judge on what I hear. I don't read cards after the round absent an allegation of fabrication or mischaracterization.