Chesapeake District Tournament
2021 — MD/US
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideBackground:
Judged 2016-2020
Lincoln-Douglass, Congressional Debate 2012-2016
he/him/his or they/them/theirs
(I'm not nonbinary. Normalize gender neutral language!)
Universal expectations:
* Don't be disrespectful.
* Don't promote bigotry.
* Add me to the email chain: a.bissell.siders [at] gmail [dot] com
Lincoln-Douglass paradigm:
I believe high-school debate should have three goals:
[1] Education to improve research skills (reading and understanding articles). Therefore:
* I generally prefer truth (evidence) over tech (theory).
* I generally prefer fewer but well-warranted claims over more but poorly-warranted claims.
* Quantitative evidence & impacts often beat qualitative evidence & impacts (unless you weigh them well!).
* [Research shows that empirical evidence does change people's minds (eg, Wood and Porter 2018). Bennyboi Shapiro ain't right about much, but he's right about "facts and logic".]
[2] Competition to improve communication skills (listening and speaking). Therefore:
* If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Guide me.
* I generally prefer fair-ish rounds with roughly equally accessible ground.
* I generally prefer clarity and concision over speed.
* [Non-debaters speak around 100-200wpm and comprehend 200-300 wpm. Aim below 300 wpm! Focus on compressing your sources rather than expanding your speaking rate!]
[3] Provide an accepting and enjoyable space. Bigotry has no room here. Don't attack your opponent, attack their arguments. Four-letter words are fine. Humor is wonderful. Be yourself. Relax, you'll do fine.
Congress paradigm:
All speeches: Debate the bill!
* Stock bad: Debate about the bill! Don't give generic introductions. Don't give generic arguments.
* Link bill to impact: Don't just say "impact X is bad" or "X is good". Do provide evidence that "bill does Y and Y causes X".
* Weigh impacts: Do give impacts for each argument. Do weigh impacts against opposition's impacts.
Negative speeches: Demonstrate harm!
* Insufficiency is not a harm: Don't just say "bill is bad because it doesn't do X" unless you provide evidence that "bill is mutually exclusive with X".
* Complacency is usually not a harm: Don't say "bill is bad because it partially solves X, which makes people complacent about X" unless you provide evidence that "partially solving X makes people complacent about X".
First affirmative and first negative speech: Provide framework!
* Provide framework: Establish the framework to weigh impacts for the debate.
Later speeches: No rehash!
* No rehash: Don't make the same arguments unless you give new evidence.
* No rehash.
* No rehash.
Presiding Officer:
* I highly rank strong POs. Efficient, knows rules of order, commands chamber.
End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your sentence quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your sentence, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.
Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.
General: I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, my decisions will be based on the values presented and whose overall arguments are better.
Bottom-line upfront: Present clear, well-organized arguments supported by appropriate evidence. Respectful passion is appreciated, but decorum matters. Bullying an opponent is unacceptable and will lower speaker points. Speed is acceptable (but should not be used to skip over weaker parts of your argument), and I recommend you do not speak so quickly that your arguments cannot be absorbed or I cannot take adequate notes. Arguments should be coherent, relevant and on-point. Have fun!
Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to but please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it. Generally Moderate pacing with clear supported arguments is preferred. Make sure your Value and Value Criteria are clear. Do not speed through them. Explain why/how each argument supports the VC.
End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your thought quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your thought, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.
Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.
General: I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, my decisions will be based on the values presented and whose overall arguments better support the VC and V.
In judging Lincoln Douglas debate, I will base my win/loss decision on the following criteria: (1) does the debater present a logical and persuasive basis to affirm/negate the resolution; (2) does the debater have evidentiary support or well-reasoned grounds for the arguments presented; (3) has the debater responded adequately to the other side's critique of his/her case; and (4) has the debater demonstrated through argument and cross-examination that his/her case is more compelling than the opponent's proposal.
As far as general rules/criteria: (1) the quality of the cited evidence is more important than the quantity of source material; (2) an argument may carry the day even if there is no evidence card to support it--logic and common sense may be more persuasive than some random quote; (3) "spreading" (i.e., talking too quickly) is not a persuasive speaking style, and I will deduct significant speaker points if I am unable to understand you; and (4) civility is important, and I will deduct significant speaker points if a debater is rude/snide/dismissive of the opponent or the opponent's arguments.
Good luck and have fun!
- Flow, please be clear so I know where you are and what you're responding to (we love to see signposting)
- Former LD debate participant, but it's been a minute! I try and remember what has been helpful to me in the past
- Your summary should show me what points the debate turns on and how you argued it best.
PARADIGM: Lincoln/Douglas
"Traditional" parent judge.
GOOD: You pick a few compelling points; thread them together rhetorically; respond in the moment to challenges; and thereby formulate an argument. Your even pacing and signposting demonstrate organization, clarity, and the understanding that your case and rebuttals must be compelling to the judge; not merely to you or your competitor.
BAD: Disregard for history. Remember, LD is named after two giants of American rhetorical practice, who squared off in a series of values-based debates on the most divisive issue of their time. Those debates occurred in the public square, with the intent of compelling voters to adopt a cause. Lincoln did not use K's. Douglas did not use Progressive Theory Arguments. And neither of them spreaded. (Speed-talkers in this event cannot or will not prioritize. Yes, you're operating within a time constraint. Use that not as an excuse to cram in more stuff and talk faster. Rather, use it to winnow out all but the most persuasive points.)
Good luck!
For my judging preferences, I appreciate when you clearly define your framework and explain how it ties in to each of your arguments. It would be best to stick to more traditional cases. If you are running a progressive case, make sure you have coherent and understandable arguments. If you are planning to spread, please prepare to share your case with me and your opponent before the round. Please be respectful; many thanks and good luck.
Overview
I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 10 years now). While I am experienced and willing to entertain almost any strategy, do not assume that I am familiar with circuit trends.
I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I would strongly prefer not to hear 15 blippy a prioris or spikes designed to be easy outs. I try not to intervene too much in the round.
I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have a very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.
This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I will disclose and provide oral feedback only if doing so fits within the the rules and norms of the tournament. I promise I am more chill than my paradigm makes me sound. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.
Speaker Points
My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:
- Don't overexplain or become repetitive
- Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
- Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
- Be civil with everyone in the room
- Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
- Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
- Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
- Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
- Project without shouting
- Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
- Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
- Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
- Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches
I very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will) a good round where people don't adapt to each other in this way. I am quite happy to tank your speaks into oblivion for going 300+wpm against someone speaking at 160wpm even if I vote you up. If you don't know your opponent's style or speed, feel free to ask (and don't lie if you are asked--lying in this way is a breach of ethics and I will vote you down). I also appreciate funny and/or obscure Star Wars (be warned, I hate episodes VII-IX), Star Trek (DS9 is the best but I love them all), or LOTR references.
I also have some random pet peeves--while they won't hurt your speaks, but they will make me sad. For example, the verb is "rebut" not "rebuttal." "Rebuttal" is only ever a noun. Please do not say "I will now rebuttal this argument." Another example: "the resolution" is not "the resolved." "Resolution" is a noun; "resolved" is a conjugated verb functioning to communicate the idea "be it resolved that." And, lately, the difference between "exacerbate" and "exasperate" has been irking me. The former is to make worse or more serious, the latter is to make mildly annoyed or frustrated. You will exacerbate my exasperation if you conflate these terms.
Argumentation
I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions absent argumentation; rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you argue with sufficient strength that I should abandon these presumptions. My presumptions aren't fallbacks; if you want me to ignore them you need to convince me that I should.
- I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (this is a non-negotiable redline in PF).
- I presume that it is the Affirmative's/Pro's burden to defend the whole resolution.
- I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.
Additionally:
- I will not evaluate new arguments unless (a) the round is otherwise irresolvable or (b) you failed to flag it as new when you had the chance (Neg literally can't flag new arguments made in the 2AR, so I will intervene to do that for them). An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
- I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out designed to avoid substantitive debate.
- Dropped arguments are concessions (concessions still need to be impacted). You can drop your own arguments. An argument dropped by both sides is dead in the round; no amount of rhetorical necromancy will revive it and it will not figure into my decision.
- Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.
- I cannot reject a definition unless an alternative is proposed and argued for.
Here are some event-specific comments:
~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~
- I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule. I have voted for Ks in the past.
- I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy (or only an ultra-niche strategy no one but you has ever heard of) could link.
~~~~Public Forum~~~~
- As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided (this is a preference, not a hard-and-fast rule). To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. I am not opposed to extinction impacts where those impacts are actually plausible.
- Neither incredibly dense philosophy/high theory nor Ks belong in this event; you will lose my vote if you run these.
- The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for not having to do both. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round given the time constraints.
- I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.
Evidence
- Paraphrasing--as long as it's an accurate representation of the evidence, and you're not paraphrasing a huge section of text--is not objectionable. It is ridiculous to me that one would suggest otherwise.
- I do not require or expect debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me, and will not penalize debaters for not automatically sharing cases when not specifically requested to do so. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence and cases when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid or replacement for flowing. Unless someone point blank refuses to share their cases or evidence with you and I witness that refusal, I won't take disclosure theory arguments seriously.
- I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based solely on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
- If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs.
- You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.
Speed
- I can understand somewhere around 275 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225wpm. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
- I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.
Timing
- I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
- Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
- A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.
Cross-Examination
- CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise some admission made in 2CX in the 2AR, I will not consider that admission. If the Aff wanted something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should've raised it in the 1AR.
- I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will respect the majority decision on whether to allow it.
- I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches or snark-offs. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
- CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondent from their obligation to answer.
- In PF GCF, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.
My Redlines
- I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is clearly Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
- I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence in a manner which could have materially impacted the round.
- It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be quite significant; if I determine that the value isn't that high, I will ignore the entire card.
Finally
I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns (if you're comfortable with sharing, let me know which pronouns you prefer). Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, may the Force be with you!
I have been judging speech and debate for four years, and primarily judge Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
For speech: I value enunciation and suitable but not excessive changes in tone. I appreciate respect for the material while making me see it as fresh. For OO and Extemp, several of my LD comments below also apply.
For debate:
I judge based on clear, well-organized arguments supported by appropriate evidence. I want to see a link between your value and value criterion and your contentions. I appreciate a moderate tone and a well-paced argument. If you talk faster than I can write, then I cannot track your argument and will give less credence to it.
I appreciate the structured approach and give points for working that approach systematically. I prefer plain language in writing and speaking, and am not a fan of esoteric philosophical arguments.
I like solid use of signposts and sufficient detail to make sure your listeners (me and your opponent) are oriented. I also prefer not to hear references to "my card three" without additional detail of the substance of the card and how it supports your argument. I am judging six or more debates a day, so I don't track to every source without additional information.
I expect points made in cross-examination to be used in subsequent arguments, or I will not consider them.
I am put off by extremist arguments (e.g. the idea that something not necessarily nuclear will lead to nuclear annihilation) and the use of sources with a clear political bent even if you cover both ends of the spectrum in the same argument (Cato Institute, Huffington Post).
For everyone:
I appreciate all the work that goes into preparing for these events. Thank you for the chance to listen to you!