Lincoln-Douglas

Lincoln-Douglas debate is a clash of values, in which the values represent means to an idealistic, just world. Aff's and Neg's criteria are the lenses through which I understand and measure those values. I do not subscribe to the formulaic "My value is [...] and my value criterion is [...]" but you must clearly state your value, criterion, and contentions — please don't let me depend on your opponent's Cross-X to discover them.

In an ideal round, the winning debater will do the better job of tightly upholding their criterion with succinctly argued contentions that enable me to understand why their value creates a better world. In other words, for me to award you the round, I appreciate a cohesive narrative that persuades me your case's worldview is the better of the two in the round (and, of course, that would include a capable attack on your opponent's narrative and counter-attacks on their rebuttals). Nothing surprising.

In a less-than-perfect round, the loss goes to the debater who fails to present a well-structured case and doesn't effectively undermine their opponent's case and attacks. By the way, I highly respect a Neg case that is FOR something rather than just AGAINST.

Be aware that I don't judge Policy, so I'm not experienced in speed/spreading. If I can't "understand" how you're saying your contentions, I'm unlikely to understand what they are; a fast-paced conversational style is fine, just don't go auctioneer on me. There will not be any overt signal coming from me if you are speaking too quickly or otherwise unintelligibly; the burden of communication is on your shoulders, not mine.

Yes, I am knowledgeable of philosophical, historical, political, and socio/economic issues and hold opinions on them, but each round is tabula-rasa for me: you need not change my opinions to win — just demonstrate you're the better debater in the room. Presume as little as possible about your audience — I will base my decision entirely on whatever arguments and evidence I hear and understand during the round.

Public Forum

Most everything said above for LD applies to PF, except that PF is not values-based and is defined primarily by the concept of the Lay Judge. You must assume I know only what the average person-on-the-street knows. Consequently, in addition to concise, well-structured arguments that form a cohesive narrative that supports your case and effectively counters your opponent's, you must also demonstrate your ability to educate me in the topic and why it's important to the Real World (me).

True For All Rounds

âž  Always be civil and respectful; respect is core to debate.
âž  The best Cross-X/-Fire is the one that's a conversation and advances debate.
âž  If you ask a question in Cross, I expect you're interested in an answer (don't interrupt or dismiss your opponent).
âž  It's best you time yourself, but do not abuse the speech times; when the clock hits zero, find a place for a period quickly.

Judging Philosophy: I do not judge based on my personal position on a matter before me. I judge on whether the arguments are supported and defended between the teams or individuals.

Background: I am experienced Circuit and Classic judge having judged local, regional, and national tournaments for the past twenty years. Recently judged all preliminary 2023 NCFL Grand National Policy Rounds and the Octo, Quarters, and Semi-Final Rounds. I was the 2022 NCFL Grand Nationals Parliamentarian for Student Congress (Semi-Finals) in Washington, DC; 2022 NSDA Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2022 NSDA National Tournament Supplemental Congress Parliamentarian (Finals); 2022 WACFL Student Congress Metrofinals; 2021 NSDA Policy Finals; 2021 Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2020, 2019 NSDA Policy Finals (including qualifying rounds); 2018 NSDA Policy Rounds; 2017 National Qualifiers for NSDA Speech; 2016 NSDA Nationals for Congress (Parliamentarian); 2016 NCFL Grand Nationals (Policy Debate); 2016 Congress WACFL Metrofinals (Parliamentarian); 2015 NSDA CX Policy Semi-Finals; the 2015 NCFL CX Quarterfinals; 2014 NCFL LD Finals.

For Policy and Public Forum: I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Better debaters analyze the opponents' case/points and prove why their opponents' case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Able to judge Circuit style policy arguments. However, to prevail with Circuit style arguments, the debaters must still ensure they meet their prima facie obligations. See Unusual Points No. 1 below as an example.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible and the speaker points will reflect that problem. What I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is the name of the game. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives or links to arguments).

For LD: I judge on the basis of cogent and clear arguments without reaching the value and value criterion debate. The better debaters, however, will incorporate the philosophical rationale in their arguments. Unless both cases are weighted equally in terms of argumentation, do I then go to the value criterion debate. The better debater demonstrates that his value is met using his/her value criterion. If the debater does not have a value criterion, I will weigh that debater's value against his/her opponent's value criterion.

For Congress Debate: (1) As a Parliamentarian, I rank and judge the PO based on his/her effective control of the Chamber, fairness to the Representatives or Senators on recency, and understanding and implementing the Tournament Rules and Roberts Rules of Order when necessary. (2) As a Judge, I rank and judge a speaker on clarity of his/her argument for or against a Bill or Resolution along with appropriate evidence following Tournament evidentiary rules; the better speaker is one who does not read a speech and who rebuts another Representative's or Senator's points. I do not appreciate form (sounding good) over substance. I give less points and ranking for consistent "rehash" throughout the Session. The effective Congressor is one who blends persuasive speaking with substance and debates the other speakers.

For Speech: Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance. I am not a fan of "popping" to delineate characters, but do not take any points off for using that method.

Each event has particular rules that must be followed. For example, in prose and poetry, the individual uses a binder and must appear to be reading it to the audience. In duo, the partners must not look at each other nor touch. In dramatic interp, if you have multiple characters, your characters must be distinct by voice characterization or body language.

Now with Extemporaneous Speaking, I look to the speaker's ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question with poise and understanding of the topic question. I am not a true fan of the "Unified Analysis" ("UA") approach, but it is the standard in HS Speech. I coach a hybrid UA approach that stresses persuasive argumentation and analysis. I do not appreciate the "extemp walk", which is very stilted and not natural.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look for between the competitors. Using the UA approach is fine, but any way of telling an impactful story or narrative will do.

Unusual points.

1. Burden of proof for all forms of debate. Because the AFF has the burden of proof of presenting a prima facie case, so too the NEG has the burden of proof when presenting its case. For example, if the NEG argues a Kritik without providing an alternative, it has failed, in the classic sense, to meet its burden of proof and I have the ability as a judge to mark down the argument as carrying little weight. A NEG Kritik without an alternative is nothing more than a non-unique disadvantage. To that end, the same goes with the AFF in terms of its failure to provide a Plan Text and Inherency if it is running an AFF K.

2. Kritik for all forms of debate. A Kritik as an AFF case in Policy can be run. However, be warned that as a classic judge, you must present the Kritik as an AFF by presenting a prima facie case and solvency through a detailed Plan. Failure to do that most likely will result, as in any case not meeting the burden of proof, a loss. The team must provide a Plan or Solution that solves the underlying Kritik whether it be Capitalism, Racism, Sexism, or any other "ism".

Although not favored by some, a Kritik can be argued in LD as a "classic" counterargument to realism or rationalism. To get around the prohibition, a creative student will argue that if the Affirmative fails to address the underlying "ism", the Affirmative Case in support of the Resolution cannot be accomplished because there will be more harm than good.

3. Cross-Ex for all forms of debate. Cross-examination information will be used in the decision making process. As in real life, cross and direct examination are oftentimes the key to resolving issues and the answers can and will be held for and against a team. In "Open CX", if one debater is answering all the questions, the one who should be answering will have a lower speaker point.

4. Topicality for Policy. If the Case and Plan directly link to the Resolution and appropriate definitions are provided to clearly establish that link, topicality is generally not a voter. However, this does not mean that I will not entertain all T arguments. As previously stated, the NEG has the burden of proof of demonstrating a violation.

5. Counterplans. If the Negative runs a counterplan, it must not be topical (i.e., using a federal government agency). Otherwise the Negative concedes that the Resolution should be upheld. In order to win a counterplan you must show that it is better than the Affirmative Plan and that it is net-beneficial to do only the counterplan as compared to the Affirmative Plan.

6. Document Share. I do not partake in document sharing. This is a communications event, not reading event, which requires the debaters to inform the judge of their arguments. However, when required, I do ask for evidence that has been challenged as incorrect or improperly cited for the position it advanced.

Qualifications.

1. Assistant Coach for Dominion HS, Sterling VA, for all Debate and Speech Events since its opening in 2003. Total time as a judge commenced in 2002.

2. Former HS policy debater at the Championship Level (dating myself) and Forensics (Dramatic Interp and Declamation).

3. Former HS Model United Nations Third Place North American Invitational Model United Nations winner (representing Belarus).

4. Former Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Roger J. Miner, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, former USAF JAG Civilian Attorney, and former Assistant General Counsel for a Global IT Company. Current Legal Counsel to R&D IT Engineering Firm specializing in AI, AIOPS, ML, Cybersecurity, and Secured Cloud Operations.

Especially in this technological time of tweets and social media, effective communication becomes so much more vital. Events in public speaking are a valuable tool for developing a critical mind and a well-expressed person. I have never seen a person who did not need to be able to express themselves coherently in some fashion; now is the best time to develop those skills.

More experience equals more confidence. I would encourage all of you to attend as many tournaments as you can; get that experience level up. There no worthless experiences; if one event doesn't pan out, try another, we have plenty from which to choose. And never feel embarrassed to reach out for assistance. Quite often the greatest mistake people suffer are right after they decided not to ask for help.

To quote Thomas Edison: “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time.”

Speech:

Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance.

In interpretive events, make sure your characters, narration, and transitions are crisp and clear. I shouldn't have to interpret your technique to discern the success of your interpretation of the literature. If you introduce physicality by moving across the floor, make sure it is within the rules and is not distracting. Physicality should not get in the way of delivery. There are some who use noises to signify a transition, we shouldn't need a sound cue to do so. In the end, I should be able to at least discern the gist of the piece as a whole, either your particular cutting or the work in toto.

Oratorical events, such as Original Oratory or Extemporaneous Speaking, must first and foremost have a central concept or theme. In extemp, that is not difficult as there is but one topic; the ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question addresses the speaker's poise and understanding of the topic question. For OO, your topic is yours to determine, but the end is still the same: clear communication. I want to know what you plan to talk about, how you are going to explain it, then tell me what we did, basic speech structure, at minimum. Fluency and ease of delivery are key; those are traits that will only flourish with time and practice. If you're going to do "the walk", make it fluid and not scripted. A good speaker flows from point to point, both verbally and physically.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look to rank the competitors. Being able to make an in-depth analysis of a topic in a short time is impressive when done at all, extra points!

Student Congress:

In general, this is my favorite event in competitive forensics. This combines so many different elements and requires a well-rounded speaker with personality and charisma. I truly believe this is one of the more difficult and rewarding events offered.

As a Parliamentarian:

I am looking for any and all actions that promote the business of the house. Not allowing dilatory motions is not only the job of the Presiding Officer, but also the house, as well. Every member of the house should make an effort to observe the business in the house and be ready to make a Point of Order if needed. I also wish to promote and reinforce courtesy and decorum in the house. Proper address is rewarded. The business of the house is to advance debate and legislation, not just to make sure someone gets a speech in. Being aware of the business of the house will inform the members that it may be time to end debate on a bill, so make sure the proper motion is used.

As a Judge:

I will be looking for clarity in argumentation and a clear reason for or against the motion on the floor. Delivery is rewarded more than reading; speak up and out to the house. After an authorship speech, these become debate rebuttals; speeches should refer to the bill, the author’s speech, or previous speakers, all in the goal of advancing the business of the house and debate. As debate advances, we should see new points or aspects for or against the legislation; rehash means that the topic is done. An effective member of Congress combines persuasive speaking and evidentiary substance.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

I am at first, a flow judge, meaning that I want to see a debate run from beginning to end. Leaving large holes on the flow makes judging the round much easier. After that, I look to the actual caseloads. Core Values and Value Criteria must not only be presented, but supported by the contentions. Strategic use of an opponent's value, criterion, or contentions to uphold their own is risky, but a winner when done correctly. In the end, I wish to be convinced.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into L-D. This is a philosophical event "we should", not a policy debate "here are all of the solutions". Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the debater points. Also, if a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977". Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in L-D. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

Be courteous to your opponent. Allow them to answer questions, do not cut them off. Turn off all noisemakers, including your timers. Please do not make unnecessary noise and distractions during the opponent's speeches. If you require 14 different pens to flow speeches, change pens silently.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of debaters. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

Policy Debate:

Nope.

Public Forum:

Public Forum Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects the assigned resolution. The focus of the debate is a clash of ideas in a persuasive manner that can be understood by a “lay” judge. Good debaters should display logic and analysis. They should use evidence when needed. They should win their case and refute that of their opponents. They should communicate effectively, using the fundamentals of good speaking. The format keeps a team on its toes. This is an event that should be able to be judged by a lay person, making a convincing case is critical. Therefore, abstract concepts and debate-specific jargon doesn't make a strong case per se.

I judge the quality of a debate first on maintaining a consistent debate. If, for some reason, both teams decided that there is one major voting topic, that is fine; sometimes the round evolves into more argumentation on fewer points. Next is on the quality of the debate. While I look to evaluating caseloads as a policy or conceptual level, a weak caseload is more difficult to defend from a good opponent. Next is the quality of the crossfire periods. While minor, if I hear a good question, there's an extra point right there. Last is speaking quality. I do like to hear a well-spoken case.

I do not tolerate the infiltration of policy-style debate into PF. Solvency is not an issue. Spreading (the tactic of speaking very quickly to cover as many points as possible) is not a disqualifying habit, but I will dock the team points. If a debater is speaking so fast that I cannot keep up and miss recording it, it never happened. Evidence is to be cited properly, not card-style "Lucas, 1977" Give us a source that is relevant to the topic and topical (recent). Policy jargon, like counterplan, card, K, etc are also not supposed to be in PF. Debate the topic, not the debaters. Do not waste our time with off-time road-mapping; we know what you want to do in the first affirmative rebuttal, just do it.

You might feel that my list is a lot of negatives for a few positives when that is not the case. Each round is unique and it is difficult to make a case (!) that would fit every resolution and pair of teams. I will always comment on good speaking tone, volume, and pacing. These are not voting points, but could add a point or two to a winner. Convincing me against my own opinion will also garner an extra point or two. My opinion does not matter when I start the timer, but I am human and I know which side I would be arguing, so convincing me is key.

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

I competed for four years in high school (James Wood and Sherando High Schools, VA 1992-6), three in college (Laurel Ridge Community College, 1996-9). I did almost every speech event offered at the time (Duo Interpretation, Prose/Poetry, Humorous/Dramatic Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu); placed at Virginia High School League in Extemporaneous for three years at state, regional, and district levels, qualified to NCFL Nationals in Duo, Phi Rho Pi member, Eastern Seaboard champion in Impromptu and Duo. Also competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate and Student Congress. A 2023 graduate of the University of Virginia with a Bachelor's Degree in History & Politics, my intent for the near future is to teach high school history and government.

If you have any post-round questions or future judging opportunities, you may contact me at solo_falcon@hotmail.com

I am a PF judge and coach that prefers arguments based on logic. I don't care much for evidence based clash, rather I want to see how well you can point out logical flaws made by your opponent via in-depth analysis of their case. I encourage the use of a framework, as that helps direct me as to what I should be looking for, and I do like seeing impact analyses in Final Focus.

To ensure that I am able to make a fully informed decision, PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD EXCESSIVELY! I won't be able to understand what you're saying, nor will my flow reflect your case. I don't mind kritiks, but you need to do them well in order for me to evaluate them. Regardless, I prefer traditional-style debates.

I do judge tabula-rasa and my RFDs will reflect that, but if you display a lack of basic understanding of the necessary economic, political, or whatever background concept pertaining to the resolution, I will point that out in my comments to you. Basically come to round having done your research.