UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Jim Hanson

Judging Philosophy 2017

Executive Director

Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Foundation

jim@climbthemountain.us

President

West Coast Publishing

jim@wcdebate.com

I have coached and judged NDT-CEDA, NPTE-NPDA, Policy-CX, LD, and Public Forum Debate at the regional and national circuit levels including national champions and major national tournament champions. I debated high school policy and college CEDA and NDT debate long ago. I have been involved in the speech and debate community since 1976 as a frosh in high school and continue that tradition by helping new speech and debate programs as well as existing ones to succeed with my work with Climb the Mountain and West Coast.

My Default Decision-making: I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative/pro advocacy versus those of the competing negative/con advocacy.

EVERYONE: STYLE ISSUES

1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning.

2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the last speeches.

3. Please extend evidence by the tag with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer).

4. I dislike 1) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”), 2) rudeness, 3) “They are stupid” comments. I really dislike personal attacks on opponents and usually results in loss of speaker points and if carried too far could be the cause of a loss.

5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one card turn that turns into 5 minutes of additional links and impacts in later speeches. I am lenient about new arguments until the very last speaker in the debate. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue because of the new argument and why that was so critical.

6. Good cross-examination/crossfire matters a great deal to me. Questioners should ask questions to expose holes in their opponents’ cases and use followup questions to answers to gain an advantage and ask questions in a way that is clear but tough for the opponents to answer. Respondents should directly answer the question or talk about good arguments they have made related to the question. Citing sources and specific warrants in your answers is a bonus—as is answering right away without delays because you are trying to figure out an answer.

7. Speed:

--Open Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA: National Circuit style is fine for me although I prefer a rate at about 80% of high speed debates.

--In Novice/JV divisions of Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA and in ALL divisions of public forum debate: I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATERS MAINLY: KEY TO MY DECISION

Cases should provide quality evidence with warrants and impacts and should address key arguments about the topic—those arguments can be creative and unusual but since it is public forum they should be real ones that experts/the public are discussing.

Read evidence (quotations) in the rebuttal speeches and directly answer your opponent’s case arguments—don’t just cross-apply your case contentions.

Summary speakers should primarily/nearly exclusively defend their cases rather than also attacking their opponents’ cases (which was just done by the rebuttalists).

Winning the debate means winning the contentions with the most impact. Explaining how/why your strongest arguments outweigh the opposing teams’ arguments is a good idea.

NPTE-NPDA ONLY: TRADITIONAL VERSUS LINE BY LINE REBUTTALS

NPTE-NPDA debaters: If you are going to debate national circuit line by line style (which is totally fine), then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the last speech. If so, I support in NPDA-NPTE, MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 2 to 4 key answers on each position. If a team splits the block—then deal with it—don’t argue abuse because I am highly unlikely to vote on block splitting is abusive (however, if a tournament's rules ban splitting the block, i will follow the tournament's rules).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: TOPICALITY AND THEORY

1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan” types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical.

2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care).

3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it—don’t waste time arguing theory. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other.

4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative.

5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated in the text of the plan.

6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult/condition counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means.

7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. on the "pressure china topic" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan is probably also not topical).

8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan nor EU nor UN Counterplan.

9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such counterplans.

10. Object Fiat: Probably bad but I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should be ready to defend US action but there's a limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms.

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: DISADS

Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disadvantage—that is by far the most important part of a disad to me (uniqueness and impacts important too but links MORE important).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: KRITIKS

• Negatives should have specific links (links are key!!!), clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms.

• I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the 1NC. If it isn’t, I give the 1AR tons-o-latitude.

• I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter.

• Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Debters: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts.

• “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc.

• Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments.

• Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm uses the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik.

• "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count.

• Negatives that run performativity/project kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the 1NC/LOC speech (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the next negative speeches, I let the affirmative make new responses even if it is the 2AR in LD or PMR in NPTE-NPDA). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative case.

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

Personal Background

I have debated at both the high school and university level for the past 8 years. In high school, I was a finalist at tournaments such as Heart of Europe, Canadian Junior Nationals, and the University of British Columbia. I was also a top 10 speaker at provincials (the equivalent of state) multiple times. I have been coaching students for the last 4 years in Public Forum, World Schools, British Parliamentary, Cross-Examination, and the Canadian National Debate Format.

Scoring Range

I will use the full scoring range allowed by the tournament - expect a score anywhere within the 20 to 30 point range.

What I look for as a Judge

My overarching principle to evaluating rounds is that I can only judge what has been presented in front of me. Therefore, it is completely up to you to explain to me all of the important issues in the round and how your case works to address and resolve those problems. I never bring in my own knowledge or ideas when evaluating the round; however, I am always happy to provide candid feedback after the round as to what I personally did or did not like.

1. I want to make sure that you have very strong logical links between your claims. Assertions are not accepted at face value. If your argument leaves me with a lot of outstanding questions at the end of the round, you have not explained it well enough. It's not my job as a judge to make assumptions and editorialize based on where I think you are going, it is your job to explain each argument and piece of rebuttal to me as if I have the knowledge of an average person.

2. Evidence does not make an argument. Evidence for the sake of evidence is not useful and does not help your argument. I want to see that you use the evidence as an extension of your logic and analysis in order to ground the argument. If the logic behind your evidence isn't explained I won't provide it with much weight.

3. I LOVE principled arguments and do not think they are used nearly enough in Public Forum! Blame this on my CNDF and BP background, but principles help balance out your case and explain why your side of the debate is best on both a moral/ethical level and on a practical level. An extremely well-developed principle argument will beat a good practical argument every time in my book. That being said, don't forget that principled arguments also need impacts - you can't just say "that's bad and therefore we shouldn't do it" and proceed to sit down.

4. Provide context and characterization for the main actors in the debate. It's not enough to simply tell me that an actor will do something, you need to explain what motivates them to act and what forces may influence the choices that they make. Actors are not static and are multidimensional - I expect you to portray them that way.

5. Do not forget that countries outside of the United States do exist and can be important in the debate. Although this may seem obvious, I often see teams that become so focused on the United States that they either leave out other major actors or miss the major impacts of the debate. It is important that you consider and evaluate all perspectives in the debate and present a global context when the debate warrants it.

6. Word economy is very important. If you are talking fast because you have a lot to say and it is all extremely valuable content, that is excellent. If you are talking fast for the sake of talking fast while being extremely repetitive and/or providing irrelevant content, it will not be rewarded. I would rather have a debater speak very slowly and have every line of analysis mean something rather than someone who speaks at 180 words per minute and does not add much value to the round; however, I frequently see the latter rather than the former.

I've done Public Forum all throughout my high school years and coached for two more. Be aware, however - I'm no longer in the debating scene, so if I'm judging I'll probably be heading into each round with little topic background.

Just a couple things:

1. If you're going to use a framework, and expect me to judge under your framework, please tell me why your framework is valid. If I'm not convinced that your limitation of the debate is fair or reasonable, then I won't use it. (For the most part, however, I really do not like voting on a framework)

2. I will flow your crossfires, but I won't consider them in my decision unless you reference something mentioned during the crossfires directly in your speeches.

3. Please make sure you weigh - I don't like it when I have to do that on my own.

4. If you're going to reference a card, please read that card out (or summarize it somewhat), instead of just referring to it by the citation. I won't be able to remember or flow down every evidence card that you bring up otherwise.

5. Anything brought up in the Final Focus must have also been brought up in the Summary, with the exception of the first summary speaker who does not have to extend rebuttals if they haven't been responded to yet.

6. I'm fine with speed for the most part as long as it does not compromise enunciation and articulation.

Other than that, if you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Coming from a dominantly PF/Parli background, I'm comfortable with most things so long as debaters let me know beforehand.

Want to spread?

A-okay, just let me know.

Off time roadmap?

A-okay, just let me know.

Self time prep?

A-okay, just let me know.

Anything else?

Just let me know and we can talk it out.

The only things that I'm nitpicky about are intelligibility when speaking and timing for crossfire. Otherwise, it'll be round-by-round what I'm looking for in the debaters. Don't worry about what you think I'll want to see as a judge, just do your thing.