Louisiana District Tournament
2021 — LA/US
Debate (Speech and Debate) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Public Forum paradigm
I now coach speech (mostly extemp) and congressional debate, but I have judged PF and LD for the past 12 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t…
I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.
Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.
Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.
I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.
And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.
Anthony Berryhill Judge Paradigm (NEW AS OF FEBRUARY 2021 - PLEASE READ):
NEW E-mail for case sharing, etc.: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Owner of Ivy League Hacker: College admissions, interviewing and public speaking firm - http://www.ivyleaguehacker.com
- Assistant LD Coach for Isidore Newman (my alma mater); Former Managing Director for Victory Briefs (2018-2020)
- Stanford BA Political Science 2004; Previous PhD Candidate (MA/MPhil) at Yale in Contemporary Political Theory, dissertation on intersectionality (2004-2011); MBA Quantic School of Business and Technology
I have massively cut down the length of this paradigm to help you. I have very simple requirements, but those are quite different from the current status of national circuit debate and will require adaptation.
How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convince me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater. I prioritize debaters who "write the ballot" by telling me how I should evaluate the round from a meta-level with appropriate technical skills (signposting, weighing, accuracy, clear delivery).
Debaters will be penalized severely for poor delivery, unacademic/inappropriate behaviors, "tricks" and/or poor technical execution (such as lack of signposting, extensions or writing of the ballot).
Requirements you should know:
1. SLOW DOWN. The more complicated the argument/harder it is to follow, the slower you should go. Double that for analytical arguments or concepts/language that a well educated college student would need time to understand.
2. To quote the movie Margin Call, "speak to me in Plain English." Please make sure your tags, analysis, etc. is in clear, SIMPLE prose.
There is a penchant for indiscipherable language on the circuit and I ignore things I don't understand OR I don't think your opponent has a reasonable chance to comprehend.
If you are hard to understand, you are hard to vote for. Confusing your opponent is a losing strategy in front of me. This is a communication activity.
3. VOCAL CHARISMA AND DELIVERY COUNT IN MY RFD. The pattern of flat fast monotone will put me to sleep and will make me "zombie flow" (flow without thinking or comprehension). Yes, delivery is part of my RFD, usually in terms of which arguments I prioritize, which cards I give more weight to, etc.
5. EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND. Explictly say EXTEND around arguments you want me to consider in my rfd. IF your opponent is advocating something silly that they will try to kick (even a conditional CP, a "no RVI" theory, etc.) and you have offense on it, you may extend it FOR THEM, and that will stop them from kicking it. EXTENSIONS = KEY. Don't say "extend" = I get to pick what I vote on.
6. An argument is more than 2-4 words. I do not flow or vote for blippy arguments in theory preempts, or "tricks."
A point: If you like "tricks" I will drop you. If you are using tricks to deceive your opponent, make it impossible to win fairly, or such, you should strike me b/c I am not against dropping you even if you win the flow. Tricks debaters are bad debaters and bad people.
B point: "It's obvious" is not a warrant I will flow. TLDR: If you merely assert a claim without a full thought or depth, I reserve the right to intervene.
C point: I hold debate and argumentative ethics in high regard. Do not do anything a PhD would consider unethical. There is too much case plagiarism and willful power tagging of evidence. If I catch it, you are likely to dislike the result, so please refrain. If you see an opponent's powertag CALL IT OUT, I'll likely disregard the entire card/impact.
7. Theory must not be run as a time suck or no risk issue. I love to vote on RVIs if you win I should. I have voted FOR the affirmative in T debates.
ALSO: I consider running counter interps good + no RVI cheating, and am open to you citing this paradigm as sufficient proof. If you run theory be ready to win or lose the round on it, even when you are neg. But if you should run theory, run it!
8. I will not vote for the following arguments which I consider inappropriate and will intervene against:
A. skepticism: the whole point of LD is that we don't objectively know what ethics is
B. bracketing cards bad or any other disclosure cheap shot (usually based on screen shots of wikis or such): this is a new silly argument used to bully students. I will only entertain evidence challenges on explicitly miscut/powertagged evidence and/or violations of NSDA rules. This has sadly been a very recent (this year) issue, so I'm preempting this now.
C. any argument that is based on the identity (i.e. racial, gendered, sexual) of your opponent: all people should be able to make all arguments. It's called INCLUSION folks!
D. I will stop rounds if a debater is being inappropriate in content or performance. Being rude or intimidating risks the round being stopped and being given an L. I've done it multiple times. Keep it professional.
E. Arguments about misgendering: parents have a reasonable expectation that children's identities are outside of the debate classroom for inspection.
TLDR: If you wouldn't do it in front of your mom, principal or the scholars you are citing, don't do it in front of me. Just debate clean and we'll all leave happy!
I am an old-fashioned LD judge. No spreading. I want to see value/criterion level debate. LD is NOT Policy!
Experience in CX, LD and PF with preference for LD. Regarding LD, prefer a more traditional style of debate focusing on value and philosophy. Policy arguments are usually a nonstarter and unlikely to sway.
Put me in email chains or feel free to email me some questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com
May 2020 graduate from Samford where I coached our novices and sometimes coached at local high schools. Debated CX while at Samford and LD in High School.
for eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. Also, I'll default to having my camera off just because my cats are Zoom demons -- I'll change this based on tournament policy or any debater preference so just give me a heads up before the round starts and I'll turn it on.
Do what you want. Fairness is probably k2 education in T debates. Can be persuaded that education reigns supreme with the right impacts. You can skim the high school section to get an idea of how I otherwise perceive debate but I'm generally a go with the flow type of debater/person. I'll imagine fiat is real for policy debates but can be persuaded otherwise. If you're doing a style that is not plan-text big-impact AH, define by what standards I should evaluate the round and we'll be good.
I don't like theory debates. I need a lot more explanation of them to understand them so please be clear if this is your strat and make it easy to understand. Further, please don't pref me if you're high theory because I don't get it. If you're confident in your ability to explain it in an extremely clear way, go ahead, but I'm warning you that it's an uphill battle with me.
High School Debaters:
I don't care if you sit or stand or how you present yourself -- do what makes you comfortable.
Follow @SUDebate on Insta if you're cool
GENERAL LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I'm cool with all experience levels and I'm mainly out to help everyone improve the debate community.
Some pointers to get me on your side:
- Don't be rude - which includes: racism, sexism, elitism, etc. Also don't just yell - make your words smarter not louder. I could very easily be convinced to vote someone down for exclusionary behavior in the debate space. If the transgression is severe enough, I may make that decision without your opponent having to make the arg and I may report you to your coach/the tournament director.
- Road maps and signposting are A+! If you don't know what that is, ask me before the round.
- Don't be overly aggressive in Cross-ex - especially if you're just trying to scare your opponent.
- Don't assume I'm stupid - If you want to make an argument, make it. If you explain it well enough then you can overcome any stupidity I may or may not have. This has literally happened where a debate opted to not make an argument because they didn't think I would understand and I'm pretty sure they lost the debate.r
- Please time your speeches.
I dabbled in policy-type LD while I was in high school - I was closer to progressive debate than not. As mentioned, I am also now debating Policy so I'm pretty open to most "progressive" arguments: Kritiks are lit, counterplans are cool, disads are fine, I've adjusted to plantext affs and like them now, I think Topicality doesn't have to be run as a separate page but should be a shell with interp, standards and voters. Ask about anything else.
I've seen some... interesting.. arguments that hinged on like multiple-world theory, trivialism, etc. I'm cool with you running these types of arguments. You're going to have to win abuse args but you can always try. Typically you can run whatever you want in front of me - I like to learn new things.
I can handle speed - I discourage all out spreading because LD is very analytical and I would like to hear what explanations you have. If you choose to spread please email out the doc to both me and your opponent as that is a regular practice for Policy debate, which you're clearly trying to embrace.
I will probably automatically vote you down for card clipping. I've done it before and am fine to do it again. Don't do it. I'll also report you to the tournament director, who will likely tell your coach. Thanks!
I don't flow cross-ex. If it's important, bring it up in a speech.
ACTUAL POLICY DEBATE
My LD prefs should generally apply here. I'm cool with Kritiks (on either side), but if it's a more niche arg I'm probably not up-to-date on the literature. I think condo bad is uber valid when you get to the 4+ area (I could be convinced of 3, depending on the round).
For the HS topic: I am not super up to date on this topic and don't plan to be. You don't have a topic-specific knowledge base to take for granted here.
MISC - MAYBE REFERENCE?
I'm updating this as debaters do things that frustrate/confuse me. Please do none of these things.
- I don't particularly love T/theory debates, so if this is your strat make sure you're explaining things really well. Like way more than you think you should.
-- On theory, I default to a fairness k2 education paradigm unless you tell me to do something else and give reasons why. Also try winning the fairness interp.
- I seriously don't get RVIs and don't like them. I think they're especially silly in a constructive (read: the 1AC). A debater asked me about an RVI in the RFD of semi's at a tournament, I said I just literally didn't get it and the other judges concurred. At a different semi's, a debater lost because they went for a trivial RVI and the entire panel voted it down. Be the change. Don't do an RVI. ((does not apply to RVIs that are specific and well-explained I guess?? I haven't seen this happen often but usually see this as a time suck in rounds that doesn't have to do with the substance of the topic))
- Please don't read an identity k in front of me (while not being a member of that identity) and ALSO read a DA/link that your opponent is speaking for others by advocating X plan. This happens WAY too often and it's pretty ridiculous. Find a K and/or authors that don't make this yikes if you really want to go for it. Similarly, if your opponent does these shenanigans, I'm really open to the arg that they link and I should probably vote them down
Note for online debate:
- without a doc - please go like 80% of max speed because internet connections are wack
I'm Bennett Dombcik (he/him or they/them), I debated for DA for 3 years accumulating 5 career bids to the TOC and qualified my senior year. I'm currently debating policy for U of Michigan '24 - go blue!
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Given I've only been in policy since mid 2020, these are just some thoughts that I have about various things:
DAs - yes these are great. I am persuaded more by quality link cards than I am by a large amount of random links that could possibly apply to the aff (that is the case for pretty much every single argument)... OV at the top of the DA that explain why the DA ow the case and (hopefully) how it turns the case is very helpful, however, if the turns case arg is not supported by evidence, I am unlikely to be very persuaded.
I am sympathetic to 0% risk, but it does take some work to get there. I am somewhere in-between probability ow and extinction ow, and will default to the debating that is done, if no one says anything about it somehow, I will default to probability most likely (assuming that your impact has at least some, well, impact).
CPs - also great, however, I'm not yet caught up on the vast majority of weird process cps that basically get recycled as generics, that doesn't mean you cannot read them, but be prepared to explain what the mechanism of the CP actually does. In terms of the more generic process cps (consult, courts, etc.), I'm fine, same with pretty much everything else.
Sufficiency framing is most likely true unless the aff does a very good job of impacting the solvency deficit or can explain their impact as linear.
Theory stuff - everything other than condo is a reason to reject the arg, condo is a reason to reject the team. I am not unwilling to vote on condo bad but tend to think that anything less than 4 is fine. The more absurd it becomes (k, process cp, 12 plank adv cp, uq cp at the top of every DA...) the more willing I am to vote on in-round abuse.
Case debate - the best! Impact turns are wonderful to judge (same with putting a DA on case as a link turn) - aff teams tend to underestimate the time they need to spend on case in the 2ac which is not ideal to say the least.
"soft left" affs - completely fine with these - given my ld background, I am sympathetic to a variety of different frameworks to determine the desirability of the plan. Also see probability vs magnitude stuff in the DA section.
topicality - these debates are fun to judge, but admittedly, they do get blippy and I am likely to default to whichever team does the best impact explanation. I think precision is important, but debatability is probably more important given at least a ~reasonable~ defense of the words in the topic. this does not mean I think reasonability is better than competing interps - decking the topic because you want to read ur aff is not a good idea.
ks - these can be great to judge if done well - neg teams should probably have links to the consequences of the plan or a very very good defense of an alternative framework. Be warned, I am not well versed in a lot of the literature, so err away from using the big buzz words to explain your position, because I am unlikely to be able to explain an RFD to the affirmative team if I don't know what the words in the 2NR meant. I am most likely to vote for the kritik if the negative explains why the link turns the aff and takes out solvency at some level.
k affs - similar thoughts to a lot of the k stuff above - teams should be close to the topic if you want to beat T in front of me and you probably know your aff way more than I do, so please explain it. Other than that, you do you.
T vs K affs - these debates can be very good, but can also be very bad. If you're neg in these debates in front of me, I would prefer to see a strategy more focused on clash/testing more so than procedural fairness as the impact (but you can still win that if that's your jam). I think that debate is a competitive activity and that activity is good, arguments that it is bad will not do well in front of me. Instead, I think affirmatives should focus on why their model of debate set up by the aff is good, predictable, and solves a lot of the negatives offense. Very persuaded by TVAs...
Traditional/Lay debate: Pretty experienced with this and completely fine evaluating these debates. Slower/more traditional styles of debate are wonderful to watch, but are not an excuse to avoid explaining arguments, comparing evidence, and answering your opponent. If you avoid doing these things you will most likely loose. This doesn't mean that it is impossible to win my ballot if you stylistically prefer more narrative based rounds, it just means that evidence comparison, etc. should be part of the narrative that is being pushed throughout the round.
Policy - 1
K/Theory - 2
Phil - 3
Friv theory - 4
Tricks - 4/5
Speed - I'm fine with it, though please be clear.
emailing out the doc is not prep
compiling the doc is prep
if it takes more than 30 seconds between you saying end prep to starting the speech I will be sad :(
Update after Bronx '20: Getting really tired of people read more than 30 seconds of an under view in the 1AC and deciding the debate based off a theory paradigm dump in the 1NC that is blippily extended in the 2NR. If this is how you would like to debate, that's fine, but your speaks will probably suffer. I would much prefer affs to spend as close to 6 mins as possible reading cards related to the plan/a normative framework, and prefer negs to prove why that plan is a bad idea under that framework or an alternative.
Policy - love it, this is what I did pretty much all of high school. I'm comfortable with pretty much everything in the policy spectrum but I find T debates to get messy pretty fast. In these scenarios, please over explain what your interpretation does for limits and ground and explicitly weigh against the other interp. More generally, I find that a lot of people do not explain the warrants in arguments in next speeches and just restate the claim. DAs should have good link and internal link stories, going for DA turns and o/w case is always a good strategy and there needs to be solid impact calculus. CPs/PICs were my favorite strat in high school, solves case arguments need to be warranted and solvency defecits are probably the easiest place for the affirmative to win against a CP in front of me. I tend to think pics, adv cps and conditionality is theoretically justified, process cps, consult cps, and object fiat are much more open to theory debates but I don't really lean either way.
T-usfg and T-framework - this is what I went for vs pretty much every single non t aff I debated. Please have a defense of why debate is good absent just a limits claim. I do think debate is a game, but that does not mean it cannot be anything else, and I am persuaded by arguments as to why the game could be bad. I tend to think that fairness is a voter, but clash over the affirmative position is definitely a good thing. If you are the aff in these debates you need a clear explanation of what your interpretation looks like - they tend to be very messy which makes it difficult to vote aff.
Non T affs - I read a non t aff for part of my senior year and am sympathetic to arguments as to why the game of debate could be rejected. Please have some defense of what your affirmative does either within a specific round or how it spills out of the space. I tend to find impact turns to T more compelling that a counter interpretation, especially if the affirmative has no attempt to defend the topic.
Ks/K affs - No issue with these, for K affs, I am more persuading by the in the direction of the topic CI and feel that it is pretty hard to beat as long as there is some brightline. Heads up, the only kritik I read was baudrillard, so you will probably need to spend some time explaining your author and theory of power to me. Links of omission are not compelling and the alternative needs some solvency mechanism other than reject the affirmative, whether that be a policy option or to burn down the state. If I think that you are relying on buzzwords to explain the position, your speaks will probably suffer and I am less likely to understand it myself.
Theory - i'll listen to it, the more frivolous it becomes the more likely I am to intervene against it (must be from texas is a good example of very frivolous). I default DTA on everything except condo, no RVIs, and CI, but these can all be debated over. My views on disclosure theory: I think good disclosure practices are good, and I am willing to vote on disclosure theory; however, new affs bad is not a real argument.
Phil - I didn't read much of it so the same K philosophy applies, please explain what your framework is and how to weigh and filter offense under it.
Tricks - no
TLDR: if you explain arguments, do impact calc and card comparison, and don't make technical drops, you should be fine.
I have competed, coached, and judged high school debate over the last 30 years. I consider myself knowledgeable about assorted frameworks in the Debate world. I am now a parent of a debater. I consider myself a blank slate.
I believe it’s the responsibility of the debaters to guide my decision by their analysis and evidence. If your opponent drops an argument, it’s your responsibility to point it out and provide analysis as to why it matters. I really appreciate when in the final speeches of a debate, the debaters provide the concrete reasons to vote for their side. If neither debater provides these details, I will adopt a secondary framework of common sense to determine the winner.
Clarity in speaking whether conversational or spreading is important.
Assistant Debate Coach: Baton Rouge Magnet
Former Coach: Omaha Westside, Lindenwood University, Southern Methodist University
Debated at KCKCC and Millard South High SchoolTop Level
Not gonna lie... kind of a wild card situation.
One year I got to judge finals of CEDA, that was really cool! I sat though...
For some reason I find myself in a lot of 7 off type debates, I think it's an archaic model of debate, but, nonetheless, I am capable of making a sound decision.
I very seldom read evidence unless there is a dispute about the meaning of evidence in the round, or it is an absolute tie breaker situation
THE LINK RULES THE GAME - LINK DIRECTION ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY DETERMINES HOW I EVALUATE AND COMPARE IMPACTS
I evaluate Offense before Defense
I don't believe in topicality; I'll vote for it (I'm Lying) and my teams might run it on occasion, but I don't believe in the idea that we should limit knowledge production to a certain side of the library...
The Framework debate for me is won by Topical Version of the aff solving enough of the aff's impacts to resolve the limits DA... I'll also vote for your framework if you win that it fosters better skills.
Frankly, I just don't care what topic the aff talks about, I only care that the aff does something that changes the way things are... with that being said I am a lot more negative oriented when it comes to theory debates... I don't think the aff should get to tell the negative what to do... none of this is universal... but I just find myself lost in most technical theory debates.Being Negative is Hard
I think the negative has to win a reason why the aff is BAD or WORSE in order to win my ballot... they don't do x is not a link, and in my mind when you rest your hat on that argument the aff has enough room in the debate to say "at least we did something else that's still good"
Your alt/cp does nothing for me without a link... even if the 2ac drops it.. i don't care unless there is reason I can tell the aff that they make the world worse. If it is dropped i still need to understand what i am voting for... i will 100 percent not assume any impact or link that is not explained or understood by me on the flow and from a previous speech.
I have voted on no aff solvency many times but it involved shutting a lot of doors on the aff's flexibility and winning that solving x was key to every advantage the aff can claim.
I like plan flaws, i like pics... i love being negative and a lot of the teams I coach win about equal to or more neg rounds... i just think the negative has to assume predictable pivot points the aff can take via winning an advantage or an external net benefit.
After Grapevine 2020 i've decided to change the way I do speaker points... My base will now be a 28 (previously 27.5) I realized i've been doing a disservice to people who are really good speakers.
Fairness is not an Impact
TVAs are just floating PICS and i find the permutation very persuasive
I vote against my personal beliefs a lot
I think it's a shame
Truth > Tech
BOTTOM LINE IS - I WANNA BE CONVINCED OF SOMETHING IN A DEBATE... I WANNA FEEL ENGAGED... I WANNA SEE A DEBATE WHERE PEOPLE ARE LESS AFRAID TO TRY SOMETHING RADICALLY DIFFERENT...
1. Articulate your argument
2. Listen to your opponent
3. think on your feet
4. attack the speech not the speaker
Returning to debate after years (ok, decades) absence. I come mainly from a professional theatre, then theatre teacher background. Communicating effectively is of utmost importance for me. Variation, eye contact, sign posts all indicate that you are in control of your material.
I want to hear your argument not read it. I am NOT a fan of spreading. If I cannot hear your argument, it i very difficult for me to vote for your argument. I also do not consider jargon an effective tool in argument; your argument should stand on its own merits
Be sharp of mind, precise of speech, kind of heart
I graduated from Lafayette (Louisiana) High School in 1972. I was on the high school forensic team for three years and participated in debate for the most part, but also extemp and impromptu speaking. “Back in the day” it was only two-person teams, regular debate or CX. I am a clinical social worker and the administrator of a psychiatric hospital. I thought my judging “career” ended in the early 1980s. However, I came out of “retirement” in 2017 when my daughter joined her school’s speech/debate team as a freshman. She is currently a senior and her events are mostly extemp, debate and Congress. I have judged everything but my preference is forensic events.
The best way to get your argument through would be to approach me as what I would term an advanced lay judge. I am “old school”. I flow and pay close attention to CX. Spreading/speed … I don’t really like it, but can handle speed up to a certain point. If your words fuse together and become incomprehensible, you will lose me. By extension, if I am not able to get it down on the flow, it didn’t happen. I cannot judge what I cannot understand.J I pay attention to cards, especially the source. Dropped contentions/arguments are noted and graded accordingly. I appreciate clear logic and well explained analysis, smooth and organized speaking, and courteous behavior and respect for your opponent. Extend your arguments across the flow. My preference in LD is traditional style. I am OK with CPs, not so much with Ks. Unless required, I don’t disclose. You will have difficulty picking up body/facial language from me during a debate. I am pretty much expression-less and will have only intermittent eye contact. Please don’t mistake this as me not listening. My focus is on the words and the flow.
Update on virtual competition: Please be advised that LIVE online competition has its quirks. Before virtual debate, both competitors would often talk at the same time in CX. This was not a problem as both speaker's voices could be heard at the same time. This may NOT be the case in live online debate. Sometimes both speakers can be heard, but often the software allows only one speaker's voice to come through. In addition, with spreading or very fast speech, the software may not be as clear as in traditional live and in-your-face debate. In many instances judging virtual debates, spreading becomes garbled with static and skips ... as difficult as it is for a human in real-life debating to comprehend 500 words per minute, it seems that the software is even more confused. Just something to keep in mind and I'll try and remember to remind debaters of this before the round begins.
Debated for Caddo Magnet 2014-2018
Assistant Coach @ Caddo Magnet
Political Science major @ LA Tech, c/o '22
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Prep ends when the speech doc is saved/flashed.
Don't take too long while you're "sending the doc over" and still typing.
Don't call me "judge."
Evidence quality > evidence quantity.
Tech v. Truth is very much over-debated and over-theorized and I'm not sure why it is. If your evidence is correct/accurate about how things operate and your internal links are logical, then you're in the clear. Truth claims warrant a certain amount of technical skills to be won, just as technical arguments need a good deal of truth in reality to be won.
Debate's stressful. Don't be a jerk.
Play smart. Be scrappy.
A few of my debate coaches and people who helped shape how I approach everything: Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Ian Dill, Darius White, Calen Martin, Cole Allen, Ethan Courtman, and Jake Crusan.
Frame your arguments:
If you can tell me what the central points of the debate are in the final rebuttals, make effective arguments and prove why you're winning, you will most likely win the debate. I think line by line is good, but that you also need to keep in mind the big picture/nexus question for the debate. Being wax poetic is especially good (but not necessary), but tell me what's most important and why, and explain it. "Even if" statements are also really useful in this situation, and be sure to use competing claims and why making the decision for you should be easy even if you're not winning the other/most important parts of the debate.
Embedded clash is important. For argument extensions, make sure you have a claim, warrant, and an impact. Make sure you use this to your advantage and point out interactions between different arguments, be smart in pointing out double turns, etc.
Clarity > speed:
I'd rather hear a very engaging 4-5 off debate that has a variety of winning 2NRs against a certain aff, rather than a team who reads 8-10 off just to scare the other team. Slow down on blocks and analytics, because they're going to be the point in the debate where I really start paying attention to the arguments at hand and seeing how they function (also the point in the debate where you should explain them as such). Being efficient and prepared rather than fast and blippy until the 2NR is better than not.
Line by line is important:
This is very important and I think some debaters sadly forget about. Answer arguments in the order in which they appear - if "they say (x), but (x)" statements are helpful in this instance. Clean flows = good flows = organized debates = good debates.
CX should be treated as another speech. Write down your questions beforehand and have a strategy. Some judges flow CX, I tend to stray away of that, but I may star an argument a team mentions something multiple times or if an argument seemed to be critical for any particular side during CX. If an important argument is an effective turning point for the debate in CX, point it out in later speeches.
I'll listen to it, but I'm finding myself frustrated with a lot of these types of affirmatives. The 1AC should ground itself with a foundational disagreement with resolutional action - meaning a solid, specific topic link - and go from there about debating it. Not doing so will likely result to me just voting negative on T. Debates where the affirmative identifies a problem with resolutional action and uses that as offense against framework/T-USfg are much more interesting than stale debates.
***I think for topics where the resolution mandates the USfg reduces something negative it does (like restrict immigration or reduce arms sales), reading an aff with a plan is much more legitimate than not reading a plan.
***If you're reading this before round and are unsure about what your strategy with your K aff would be with me judging you based on everything above, I'd suggest reading an aff with a plan.
I think this is the most legitimate strategy against planless affs. Though it's a legitimate claim that the aff not using the USfg as an agent is unfair, you need to explain why in terms of why it's bad for normative debate practices and why it's bad that you can't engage with the aff as well as you could with one that had a specific policy proposal.
Fairness is an impact in itself, but that should be explained in terms of what unfairness is, how the affirmative makes it worse, and then funnel into discussion of other "greatest hits" impacts on the flow.
Make sure your TVA is logical and at accesses the affirmative's offense, and the aff answers need to be logical and established in order for me to not vote on it.
Well-thought out aff impact turns to T/Framework are convincing to me if executed effectively.
Framework should also be debated in the context of every aff - don't just read the same overview you do for every K aff. Specific overviews + reasons to reject the aff = higher speaks and more of a chance I'll vote for you.
You NEED to engage case. Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it. Scrap the 2-3 card DA that you won't extend past the 1NC and put some of that time and effort on case.
Good case debates about the warrants of the aff, internal link strength, sensibility, etc. are good. Debating case makes you better.
I like impact turns. I like it when teams read impact turns specific to the aff.
Spark = silly. I won't even bother telling you how silly it is---I'll give you my professors' emails and let you take it up with them.
Caselists = good.
Don't get bogged down in the non-essential details.
Competing interps, when actually competitive = good.
Reasonability against arbitrary/asinine interps that are semi-ridiculous = 100% will vote on it.
Long text = slow down.
Specific PICs are good, I like them. Debate them well.
Consult and conditions counterplans are fine as long as you defend them as you're supposed to practically and theoretically. Don't get too carried away.
Make sure it's actually competitive---this means it needs to access not only the impacts of the advantage, but the rest of the advantage itself.
The DA should have specific links to what the aff is talking about, or at least a claim that what the aff is fiating will cause what you say it will because it's that large of a policy.
Your block work on the DA should be thorough explanation, as well as lots of cards that prove your argument(s). Specific links/analysis to the aff are highly appreciated.
Lots of cards + lots of analysis = extra good.
Being from a relatively small school, I understand their strategic value. If you think there may be a risk that I don't know what you mean, don't use buzz-words and be sure to explain your args well.
Couple of K things I value:
Link Contextualization---You absolutely need to win a link to the affirmative. Generic links rarely grab my attention, unless the aff just mishandles it completely. A K 1NC that has mechanism and content links to the aff (links to the aff's process, either K-based or state-based, depending on the type of aff) is better than a K 1NC that has the link arguments "state + scenario analysis bad," without mentioning the aff's advantages. A smart 2NR will go all-in on 1 or 2 solid links with clear impacts. Links should be able to turn case without winning the alternative (even though you should still win your alt), and should each have an impact-level claim that are distinct from the other links and that can independently win you the debate. But, you need to win the alternative to win the debate, tell my why it resolves your links specific to the aff and any other link you may read - this is where the links that fit the aff best come in. I'd rather hear the 2NR go for 2 solid links rather than 3-4 not-so-good links.
Framework---a decisive win on framework will make me much more likely to vote for you, regardless if you're aff or neg.
I'll consider theory only if it is severely mishandled/conceded by the other team. I think having it as your A-game strategy isn't as strategic, but don't be discouraged and think you can't go for it in front of me, just remember there are certain times and places for those debates.
Conditionality is bad if an absurd number of advocacies are in the 1NC (more than 4 is questionable, but I'm open to a debate on whether or not that is true), but make sure to contextualize your theory blocks to the debate at hand and tell me why what they did in round is bad and incentivizes worse debates for everyone else. Tell me more of a story about what they did, why they should lose, and what your model of debate looks like under a certain interpretation (that isn't just repeating your interpretation you read in the 2AC/2NC).
These should be used to write my ballot. Easy ways to do this are to do the "final review of the debate" at the top of the 2NR/2AR and then get into the substance/nuance of individual arguments you're winning on the flow.
If Debating In Louisiana:
Don't call me judge and don't waste your speech time for thanking me to judge you.
Don't waste time asking "judge ready? partner ready? opponent ready? audience ready?" That takes WAY too long and just asking if everyone is ready is better.
Explain your arguments well. Answer your opponents' arguments well. I judge LD sometimes in-state because of tab-based restraints and something I've noticed is a severe lack of clash in these debates, and I think forcing yourself to interact with the other team's arguments is generally a good thing in debate.
You don't need to shake my hand if I judge you. I'm anywhere from 1-5 years older than y'all and that's weird and you probably have the flu.
Good luck and have fun!
My judging experience is primarily in Policy/CX debate across the state of Louisiana since 2014, with experience in LD. I've taken part in this community since 2011. I competed in CX and Extemp for 4 years, earning multiple trophies from both events.
The weight I give neg arguments in order:
1. T - extremely hard to prove to me, but outweighs everything to me
3. DA/on-case - pretty standard arguments, probably your best bet with squo arguments
4. K - I don't like Ks, so don't run it unless it applies and you know what you're talking about
I really just need heavy solvency and weight analysis of impacts/values/criteria
Last edited: 3/21
Add me: email@example.com
For online debate especially, you really need to slow down and prioritize clarity.
I debated at Glenbrook North HS for four years. During my senior year, I went to most national tournaments (Greenhill, New Trier, UMich, Blake, Pinecrest, etc), qualified to the TOC and went 4-3. Most of my views of debate are the same as those of Michael Greenstein, Stephen Pipkin, Kevin McCaffery, and Jared Zuckerman.
The role of my ballot is to vote for the team who does the better debating on whether a topical plan is better than the status quo or a competitive alternative. That means the aff has to defend a topical plan and the neg has to prove the plan is a bad idea or there's no risk the plan is a good idea.
Don't pref me if you refuse to defend the resolution. ¯\_(ãƒ„)_/¯
If you aren't going to read my whole paradigm before the round, the most important thing I can tell you is to flow and respond to all your opponent's arguments. If I can see that you aren't flowing, you probably won't win my ballot and I will deduct speaker points.
When I judge T debates, I'm answering the question "Which definition creates the best version of the topic?" I expect debaters to pretty explicitly answer this question for me in the impact debate. In my opinion, legal precision is the most convincing impact and the team that better accesses it will probably be the team that wins the debate regardless of if you are AFF or NEG. That being said, in order to access legal precision as an impact, you must have well-researched evidence. Without it, your chances of winning the debate drop exponentially even if you do the best impact calc I have ever seen. No matter what impact you end up going for, you should do impact calc just like you would if you were going for a disad- why does your impact outweigh their's and how does your impact access/turn theirs?).
I don't lean AFF or NEG in T debates- I ran pretty borderline untopical AFFs in high school which meant that a lot of my AFF debates came down to T, but I also frequently went for T on the NEG.
Case turns are underutilized and can be extremely effective either on their own or when paired with an advantage counterplan. The uniqueness/inevitability question is probably the most important part of these debates because it controls who gets to leverage try or die. If you go for an impact turn correctly (AFF or NEG) it will make my job as a judge much more fun and will probably result in increased speaks. I'd love it if more teams brought back Co2 ag.
Econ growth = bad.
You probably can't go wrong with a disad. That being said, please do your best not to prove me wrong and read disads that are somewhat coherent and can survive cross-ex. Once you have met that standard any and all disads are fine with me. I shouldn't even have to say this but impact calc is the most important part of a disad debate. When doing impact calc, you should talk about why your impact matters AND talk about how it compares to and interacts with your opponents' impact. The link debate probably controls the direction of the uniqueness debate and I generally begin evaluating disad debates by deciding whether or not the disad links. Link evidence is an important factor in my evaluation, but it is not as important as the story you tell throughout the debate and how you spin your topic generic evidence. Zero risk of a disad is a real thing and I can and will vote on it.
When debating/reading a politics disad things change a little. In agenda disad debates, I find that the uniqueness debate controls the direction of the link debate. Your uniqueness evidence must be recent and of good quality if you want my ballot. AFF teams should make politics theory arguments in the 2AC but should never extend them unless they are straight-up dropped. Besides that everything else is the same.
Undoubtedly my favorite negative argument. I think a good advantage counterplan and a disad can be a devastating strategy. That being said, I went to GBN so I know I'm going to be a big fan of your agent, conditions, and process counterplan if it seems like it belongs on the topic. The standard for whether or not a cheaty counterplan belongs on the topic is whether or not you have a solvency advocate that ties the CP to the resolution. If you do, you're golden, but if you don't, I wouldn't even bother reading it.
Solvency deficits can be great when they are explained AND impacted well and should definitely be a part of your strategy. Unfortunately, most plan-inclusive counterplans will solve your deficit so you should go for theory or an impact turn of the net benefit. I find myself very convinced by sufficiency framing and think that it is very unfortunate that most AFF teams will drop it in the 1ar. The only theory argument that I am AFF leaning on is "no neg fiat". I don't know about y'all but I don't see a negative resolution...
Not very deep in any identity or high theory lit so you better explain things very well becuase if I can't explain it back to the other team I will not vote for it. I have provided a spectrum of how likely I am to vote for your kritiks with a disad as a reference:
A Disad--Security/Neolib/Cap----Set Col------------------------------------Everything else-----------------High theory-----------Identity
I will not vote on death/suffering good and I find the fiat double-bind funny but unwinnable.
When going for a K in front of me, please don't tell me that I need an extra sheet for the overview. Spend a lot of time on the link portion of the debate and flush out several clear and direct links. The more specific they are, the better the debate will be and your chances of getting my ballot go up. Naming the links is a good and helpful practice. Don't fill your speech with buzzwords and don't drop the alt in the 2NR.
Sasha Kreinik Paradigm
I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.
I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past year I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.
Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with some speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round.
One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.
I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.
In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.
Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions.
Add me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Although I am very familiar with criminal justice reform, Isidore Newman will the first time I judge this topic. That being said, if there is anything that I should know (acronyms, programs, important concepts, etc.), use your speeches to explain it.
I'm fine with almost any argument, so long as it is explained coherently and has a claim, evidence, and warrant behind it. Ultimately, just be nice, be prepared, and have fun.
Not sure how big it is on this topic, but I am a big fan of T debates. I think legal precision is probably the best way to win T debates (regardless if you're aff or neg)- I'm persuaded by the argument that legal precision controls the internal link to whatever other impacts there are (fairness, education, etc.). Also, intent to define is key. Don't hesitate to call out your opponent's evidence if it is taken out of context.
Great argument. Agent, conditions, process, etc. are all fine with me as long as it's tied to the rest of the debate. That means that at some point a card needs to be read by the neg that ties the CP to the aff, or at the very least the resolution. Solvency deficits can be devastating if they're explained well, and certainly should be part of your aff strategy. Likewise, having quality evidence on the neg that establishes solvency makes your CP much more viable. Advantage CP's are underused and can be super effective when coupled with a DA. In terms of theory, I am probably neg leaning, but can be convinced otherwise. The only argument I may be aff leaning on, depending on the situation, is condo. Aff, if you're going to go for it, don't make it a generic, theoretical debate over the merits of conditionality. The best way to execute condo is to make it as specific to the round as possible, and provide concrete examples of how the neg's use of condo was abusive.
Any and all disads are fine. I frequently went for DA and case as a 2n and I think it's a strategy that's not used enough. Obviously impact calc is super important, not just fleshing out your own impact but also comparing it to theirs. I can be persuaded to vote aff on defense alone, especially if the case debate is executed well, but you'll probably be more successful if you go for a link or impact turn.
The K can be an extremely effective strategy, and I will definitely listen. While I am familiar with most K literature, the more high theory it gets, the larger the burden is on the neg to explain it. At the end of the day, if I can't comprehend your argument, I'm not going to vote for it. My favorite K to read was set col, but I'm fine with anything. For both sides, be respectful to your opponents and do not personally attack them. Also, be direct about what your argument is and don't be shifty. I'm not going to vote on K results in the aff post-alt or fiat double bind, so your path to victory is much more clear if you focus on the actual substance of the kritik. For most kritiks, I think the neg has a pretty high threshold to establish a link, so make sure you read evidence that puts your K in the context of the aff, and have specific examples of what the aff does that links to your argument. If you're aff, use your c-x and speech time to point out the lack of a link and also attack the alt. A lot of alts are simply buzzwords that can't be explained, or, if they are comprehensible, have clear, significant DA's to them. If you're neg, take the time in your speeches to explain what the alt does, how it solves your impacts, and why it's preferable. I'm ok with K affs, but I think it's definitely an uphill battle for the aff if the neg has a solid framework argument. If you plan on reading a K aff, tie it to the topic, have a good defense of why it should be a part of the debate, and explain why the impacts of your aff matter, both in terms of the "real-world" impacts as well as the impacts that your aff has on debate as an activity.
Debate Coach, John Paul the Great Academy
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Note for Online Debate
I'd recommend going 70-80% your regular speed, it has been hard for me to hear 100% of spreading over zoom.
I evaluate the debate by best links back to the framework. Weighing impacts and crystallization is very important to me. Be clear about your advocacy and your arguments. Extend arguments with claim, warrant, and impact instead of just stating the card name. Consolidate the round to its key issues and show me what matters.
Be respectful. Debate is supposed to be an activity for everyone.
While debate is inherently about the arguments, it has a performative aspect. How you deliver your speeches and conduct yourself matters.
Im a college sophmore who debated at Caddo Magnet for four years. I've been coached by Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Jake Crusan, Nathan Jagot, Alden Connor, and other Caddo/LA-area alumni.
I primarily judge policy, but my LD and PF paradigms are at the bottom.
Do everyone a favor and slow down on blippy analytics that you think are important. If I don't flow it, I can't evaluate it.
Please don't spend time from your speech thanking me for judging.
CX - open
I usually don't keep time well at all, so don't rely on me for that
Thoughts on current topic
I haven't judged enough on this topic to have any particular thoughts yet.
I'll vote for the team who frames their arguments best within the round. Explain your arguments and how it relates to the other arguments in the round. I'll vote for any impacted argument as long as you give me a warranted reason. I don't want to intervene in the round as a judge.
Tech > Truth
I default to tech unless you give me a very good, impacted reason to prefer truth in the round. I will vote on dropped arguments (should be impacted) and think extending/answering warrants is important. Though I try to keep judge intervention at a minimum, winning an untruthful claim is probably going to be harder - just logically explain your arguments.
I think that FW is a good, viable strategy that teams often utilize incorrectly. I think the negative often comes ahead on FW but fail to actually address the Affirmative's role of the ballot or the judge. I think fairness definitely can be an impact if you win that it is, and I'll buy that my ballot should be used to remedy fairness in round, but this should be coupled with specific indites on the affirmatives ROB. I know that its hard to come ahead against obscure lit you don't have prepped, but you should try your best to at least engage the ROB/aff interp or affirmative thesis with some in round specificity, because, ultimately, the affirmative's case is a net benefit to their interpretation.
Personally, I think a certain amount of K aff ground is inherent to each topic and should be discussed. However, that does not mean I will evaluate FW any differently if "in truth" your K aff is reasonably topical; you have to win the flow. That being said, you need to say what it is you are "doing" through the aff, preferably in the form of an easily located advocacy statement. Whether you are deconstruction or are doing nothing, say it. The only scenario where you probably don't have to do this is unintelligibility or something like that.
I also don't like it when you and your partner have competing understandings of the lit. When the 1A and 2A differ on the nuances or the CX answers change as the round goes on, it makes me much more sympathetic to FW and/or presumption, because you are, in essence, dropping or contradicting components of the aff between speeches.
T debates are fun and techy. I really enjoy good analysis over interpretations and violations. Aff: if the neg teams violation is wrong, and you clearly meet, explain that, answer the other stuff, and you should win. Neg: if the aff violates, explain why, please.
Legal Precision is also pretty cool...
Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it.
I definitely enjoy a good kritik debate. You should explain the thesis of your kritik, though. If there is anything that you think may not be clear, and it is integral to your strategy, explain. Both teams should pay attention to the framing debate too. Links should be contextualized to the round/aff.
I enjoy all types of counterplans and don't mind cheaty counterplans. I default to condo, so unless the aff reads condo bad, I will assume conditionality is good. Also, I view judge kick as an extension of condo, so if condo is uncontested, then neg can generally win judge kick, but I probably won't kick it for you unless you say something.
I default to debate norms unless one team is clearly winning theory. I don't mind cheaty counterplans, but affs can win cheaty CPs bad theory if their is a really clear in-round abuse story. Otherwise, its probably not a reason to reject the team, just the argument.
-------- LD --------
I am definitely a flow judge - I will try to evaluate all the arguments made in the round at a technical level as they appear in the round. I am especially looking for clash between arguments of each side and paying close attention to line-by-line analysis.
I think that what LD offers in terms of the framework debate is unique and very interesting. That being said, just because this is LD does not mean I am going to evaluate the round with some ideal vision of the activity - I am going to evaluate the round according to what is said. The main implications:
a. If you want to have the debate evaluated primarily on whose value is better, thats where you should focus on engaging the arguments
b. If you want to have the debate evaluated primarily on the contentions, this is where you should focus your time.
The issue I encounter a lot in judging LD debates is that teams just throw out value and value criterion in the round and extend them half-heartedly, barely engaging the opposing team's framework. In debates like these where the two opposing frameworks are like ships passing in the night, I will treat it as a wash and move on to the contentions, probably slightly leaning towards the affirmative's framework.
The way to avoid this: Show why your value and value criterion are distinct and preferable. I can't stress distinct enough, because if you (negative speaker) are going to go for value and value criterion that are very close to the affirmatives, you have to really stress that nuance as to why your's is different in the first place. Teams that do this well tend to win on the preferable flow as well.
Don't take the following with too much weight, cause it's probably a bad take, but I feel like a good bit of the time, the negative is wasting its time by reading value and value criterion, because they almost always end up going for some form of meeting the Affirmative's value and value criterion. Maybe this is a bad take and mainly comes from judging lower levels.
I am a policy judge primarily, so I am cool with CPs, Ks, DAs, Theory, etc. Just like any debate, I will assume that these arguments are fine in the debate space unless a theoretical argument is made in-round otherwise.
-------- PF --------
I am a flow judge who's background is policy. You probably know how that transfers over to PF judging better than I do.
As far as I can gather, I tend to do be voting for the teams that do the best line-by-line, so take that how you will.
I see each round as a game: I start at 27 speaks, from there you win points for well-made arguments, good use of cards, and clear attacks and rebuttals and you lose points for dropped arguments, poorly sourced or clipped cards, and vaguely linked or unclear impacts. However, I won't flow dropped arguments to your side unless you call them out!
- The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
- I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
- When making arguments, I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
- Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks. However, if I can't flow the argument, you didn't make it.
- Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
- Signpost! Whenever possible, reference the Contention # or specific subpoint in your speeches and CX. Pretend I'm your pickiest English teacher.
- Do add me on any email chains firstname.lastname@example.org
- If you're running a K or using theory shells, don't.
- CX is for questions; if you make arguments during CX I will cry. If you make the judge cry, you will get lower speaks.
Finally, I do love judging and love to see students who take the event, but not themselves, seriously. Overly aggressive debaters will lose speaks if it becomes abusive. Be frank and succinct, but be civil.
I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework. If possible, do not spread.
Info about me: I was a high school competitor and have done LD for about 2 years. I know the rules and I will not tolerate any harassment or abuse during a round. This is mainly for personal attacks, and if this happens, it will be an automatic loss and taken to the tab room. Keep the debate civilized.
For speed, I do not mind if you are talking fast, be careful do to the tournaments being online. I do not allow spreading in my rounds. If you are speaking to fast for me, I will signal you to slow down
I do flow my rounds, so if I am looking down, I am still paying attention. I also listen to cross and that may be included with my judgment, however please don't only use the cross for clarification, makes the debate lose speed and clash.
For arguments, I am looking for a logical debate from both sides, I do not want a debate over definitions, or only framework, debate the cases as a whole. Evidence is encouraged for attacking and blocking, however do not rely on it entirely, too much information is just as bad as too little. If you are going to use hypothetical, please don't give the most extreme because that is unrealistic and brings down the debate.
I’ve debated for over 10 years competitively, but have been out of the high school circuit since I graduated in 2015. The main point of debate is ultimately down to the clash. The debates that will immediately get you speaker points docked are those in which the negative refuses to clash with the affirmative. I’ve seen too many (and even been a part of) rounds in which the negative side tries to opt out of the affirmative cases by either running misdiagnosed topicality or Kritiks without proper links. Don’t make the round harder for yourself by running something that doesn’t clash. That being said however, I do love well run kritikal debates. Make sure you tell me my role of the ballot. Why am I voting for you? The quickest way to get my ballot is to impact weigh the arguments. Don’t just throw arguments against each other. Tell me why your contention 1 holds more weight than their contention 3. The way I assign speaker points is to start from perfect speaks and work my way down with deductions for filler words, rudeness, or things such as bringing up dropped arguments.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com (REMEMBER send me cards before your speech that you'll be reading. If you're spreading analytics send me that as well. If analytics will not be spread I don't need them in the doc)
1. Speed: Here's my take. I've been debating for a while so I can keep up with speed. HOWEVER, with everything being online clarity has become a HUGE issue. Please go much much slower than you normally would. You don't have to go at a lay pace, but just remember I only say clear twice, before I put my pen down. What I miss will be held against you.
2. Theory: Remember fairness and education come first. Debate is an activity about fairness, and theory is meant to address that. IT IS NOT meant to let you opt out of substantive arguments. For this reason, I don't really enjoy theory and RVI debates. Keep everything on the resolution. Theory just serves the purpose that the debater running the shell, lets me know the violation and why it should warrant dropping the other debater. The debater going against the shell, just defend yourself and move on, don't drop everything and go for winning off the RVI because it won't hold any weight for me.
3. Stylistic: I'm very lenient with speaker points and usually give extremely high speaks. Please give me concise voters in your final speeches. They will have the most magnitude for me because it allows me to determine what the main issues you are going for are. Please impact everything, don't just read random cards and move on. Also don't just card dump, I want to see you construct meaningful arguments.
4. VERY IMPORTANT: Please Read. Before your speeches I want the cards you will be reading. Too many competitors send the cards after their speech, at which point there is not enough time to evaluate the cards because the next speech has started. I want to be able to follow along as you read your cards. Please note that this means sign posting will be VERY important. If you're going 600 WPM, and not sign posting anything you've already lost me. SLOW DOWN On tags and authors. Let me hear those clearly before you ratchet up your speed. Any analytics or non cards not in the case doc need to be at a reasonable speed. You can spread what's on the doc.
5. If you read anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc... You've lost the round and gotten the lowest speaks possible. End of discussion.
6. I do not tolerate petty games debaters play where they send uncut cards or weird formatting to their opponents. I want the files you send to me and your opponent cut exactly how you read it.
7. Argument Evaluations: I don't like Skep or Tricks. Please do not read these arguments in front of me because I don't evaluate them. They either try to get a quick technical win or try to break down really high philosophy in a short amount of time, usually in a very poor manner. I love Kritiks so feel free to run those. Also I love performative cases and do accept Non T Affs in round. Just be aware of a couple of things
a. Your threshold to access my ballot is much higher if you're not linking to the resolution
b. If your position advocates something like automatically giving you the ballot, just note that if I feel it impedes on the negative debater's access to the round, I will be more interventionist in my decisions.
8. Dropped arguments get a certain evaluating method with me. I do think because it shows poorly on the debater who dropped the argument, even if it's not brought up by the opponent, I still evaluate the drop mildly (it will affect my decision but not as much as if someone brings up the drop).
Hi, I'm Jeffrey Swift.
I debated at Holy Cross School in New Orleans, Louisiana for 4 years. I debated PF for 4 years, CX for 1 year (jr. year) and World Schools for 3 years (soph-sr. years). I qualled for the TOC my senior year and broke at Nats in WS my junior year (Doubs) and got to finals in a couple of novice CX tourneys (St. James, AL; Newman LA; Hattiesberg, MS; Oak Grove, MS) my junior year as well.
Judging Preferences PF Framework:
I love framework, it is my favorite part of debate. I will vote off of most frameworks if it is substantiated and well defended. I believe that framework is strictly how a judge should evaluate the round. If you lose framework, you're kinda screwed but you can still win if you do a good enough job of meeting the framework. I WILL look at slightly abusive frameworks as well, only because I think it makes debate interesting BUT if you get called out on it and the other team is right about the abuse, you will lose the framework but NOT the round.
TL;DR: I like framework, best way to get my ballot, be slightly abusive but don't get caught.
I'm good with speed but I believe that PF is a more common folks type of debate so spreading won't impress me . If you're a little bit faster, that's cool but respect that your opponents may not have an ear for spreading
I'll listen to whatever you feel like running. You just gotta explain it well. If you run something extravagant for the purposes of "it sounds cool," but can't explain it or make it make sense to me it's going to make me angry and I will probably vote for the team that extends something the cleanest or explains an argument the best. If I look unimpressed then I am probably trying to figure out why you thought it would be a good idea to run something you don't understand.
That being said
Run what you wanna run, and enjoy the debates. Email me with any questions at firstname.lastname@example.org
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO MAX YOUR SPEAKS?
My best way to answer that question is to say: Make the debate accessible. No, I'm not going to explain what that means. Whatever you think "making the round accessible means" will benefit your speaks.
I’m going to be tech over truth except for theory i’m truth over tech: meaning I’m not gonna buy the theory arg unless there is real abuse. I’m tired of good rounds being wasted on super petty theory arguments.
Facts about me that you can arbitrarily and subjectively use to pass judgements about me:
Did policy and LD in HS and college. I read existentialism for pleasure. I have interesting affinity for reading and researching things relating to Mao, Maoism and weird contours of communist organizing despite being a rather open capitalist.
TLDR: Tech>Truth (default). Do what you want...no actually like read and do whatever you want/whatever you think is the most strategic. I judge the debate in front of me. Yes I will likely understand whatever K you're reading. Yes T/fwk. By nature of the last 2 sentences I just a lot of clash debates and KvK debates.
The following three points are borrowed from J. Stidham's paradigm which I think captures some of my general beliefs:
"-No judge will ever like all of the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate them fairly. I appreciate judges who are willing to listen to positions from every angle, so I try to be one of those judges. I have coached strictly policy teams, strictly K teams, and everything in between because I enjoy all aspects of the game. Debate should be fun and you should debate in the way that makes it valuable for you, not me. My predispositions about debate are not so much ideological as much as they are systematic, i.e. I don't care which set of arguments you go for, but I believe every argument must have a claim, warrant, impact, and a distinct application. Tech and truth both matter... I strive to be as non-interventionist as possible. Impact framing/judge instruction will get you far. The predispositions I have listed below are my general heuristics I use when making a decision, but I will ultimately vote for the team who wins their argument, even if it strays from these conventions. I appreciate debaters who do their thing and do it well.
-Don't base your strategy off of your (probably incorrect) assumptions about my own debate career.
-For everyone: Stop being afraid of debate. Cowardice is annoying. Don't run away from controversy just because you don't like linking to things. If you don't like defending arguments, or explaining what your argument actually means, please consider joining the [Chess Club]."
-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff? I ultimately think the aff has to...well do something regardless of what style of argumentation.
-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.
-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is bad at the end of the debate I will vote aff. Similarly if the 2AC fails to extend/explain why they actual solve anything I will vote neg on presumption. I see this problem a lot in T debates and it just baffles me. Congrats you won that your aff is topical but not that it is good.
-CASE DEBATE its a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly will be rewarded with heavily with speaks.
-If you expect a judge to stop the round after a debater reads a Shapiro or Patterson card...I'm not the judge for you.
-I go in to rounds as a blank slate, you should tell me how you want arguments treated/used("filter the debate through the permutation etc.) This makes framing HUGE!
-It is in your best interest to
-Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication.
All the COOL kids give args their own section so they're below if you care.
From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.
I do enjoy postmodernism for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature as well as CRT will deeper than other works.
Top level stuff
1.You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.
2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.
My major qualm with K debates as of late mainly centers around the link debate.
1.I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.
2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".
Not much needed to be said here. Have good internal link analysis. You don't need to be an aspiring poly sci major, just be knowledgable about what you're reading.
- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.
-I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.
- Solvency comparison is rather important.
I dont have any major predispositions here.
I'm pretty even on this honestly. If you're actually reading this section, I would encourage you to read all of it and not cherry pick sentences to make sweeping judgements.
I think debate is a game cause it is. This does not mean it cant have spill out or have important meanings for certain groups, but at the end of the day its a competitive game that both sides want to win.
-Did I read an aff without a plan my entire junior and senior year and most of college? Yes
-Do I think T-USFG/Fwk is a true arg in the sense that its probably unfair given certain models of debate? Yes
-Does what I ran or think is true play into my decision? Nope. As I said above tech>truth just because something is true doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.
For aff teams, you should answer T the way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 1ar that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.
You should probs have a counter interp or model of debate.
Thank you for taking the time to read this A little about me: I debated LD for 4 years in high school and competed in IPDA in college. I also coached speech and debate for 3 years while I was in undergrad. While each form of debate has its nuances, clash, impacting out your arguments, and overing weighing in round will win my ballot.
I want to give you two important notes about me:
Speed: I don't think getting out as much information as possible is the best strategy in all debate. I think that a few quality points that are impacted out are much better tools. However, if you choose to spread, please send me cards (if possible). I would also appreciate you slowing down on tags, authors, and impacts.
Framework: I think frameworks are a hugely important part of LD. It is part of what makes LD its own category of debate. Please don't just list a value and a criterion. Explain them. Impact them out in your contentions. Weigh them. Show me you understand them. If it is clear that you don't understand your own framework, that will factor into your speaking points.
Voting: I'm also a sucker for voting issues! If you don't tell me why I should vote a certain way, you're leaving the ball 100% in my court to decide how I should decide the round.
If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask away!
Hi there! I'm glad you're reading this. A little about me: I debated LD for 4 years in high school and competed in IPDA for 4 years of college. Every form of debate is a little different, but overall each round is going to come down to clash and impact weighing. That's how you will win my ballot.
A few things:
Speed: Please don't feel the need to impress me with speed. You will impress me more by being a good orator, having clarity, and signposting. Going faster than snail pace is fine, though. Remember, I'm not an idiot but I am *very* out of practice with spreading. Please send me cards before the round (email@example.com), but if you insist on spreading, slow down for tags and analysis. If I lose you, I will stop flowing. I won't say clear-- you know when you're being unclear.
Theory/Abuse: Fairness and education come first. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of theory debates, so try to avoid them if you can in front of me. If not, then overexplain it but still respond to other substantive arguments in the round. Please don't run T just for the sake of running T. I don't think it's reasonable and I think you had better have a good reason to run it. Show me why your ground is limited because of what your opponent did.
Framework: I love framework debates in LD! I think that's what makes LD so different compared to other styles. If you're going to run a certain framework, make sure you understand it and can explain it well. Truly, that is how you will get the highest speaks from me.
If you run anything that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. in front of me, you will get the lowest speaks possible and I will be sure to inform tournament staff/coaches promptly. I don't tolerate it and neither should you.
Everything else is fair game! If you have questions, please don't hesitate to ask.