Southern States Middle School Speech and Debate Championship
2021 — NSDA Campus, US
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a parent judge, speak slowly, clearly and with confidence.
Be professional , quality over quantity of your arguments matter.
I would like to see how you handle and answer cross fire questions.
I will try to be as neutral as possible, and keep track of time.
It is your responsibility to make sure your are clear and communicating to me.
Wishing you the best.
In 2011 I graduated from Trinity Preparatory School in Orlando Florida. While I was there I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate, traveling to Harvard, Yale, Glenbrooks, St. Marks, Greenhill, Emory, and Mineapple.
I enjoy and value debate. The ability to exchange thoughts in a mutually beneficial way is a crucial skill and I am thankful that the activity of competitive debate gives competitors the opportunity to grow in that skill.
How I Judge:
I am familiar with DA’s, K’s, and Theory. Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. I will enter every round with a tabula rasa paradigm. I flow well.
If you have any more specific questions, shoot me an email at Jeremiahbbaxter@gmail.com and I’ll get back to you and update my paradigm to cover any unanswered questions.
hi !! i'm lilly - i do VLD for northland christian. i don't have time to make a comprehensive paradigm but i'm prob cool w/ anything lol
if ur case is digital/u be spreading: email@example.com
if u have any specific questions feel free 2 ask before round :)
hi i'm scott (he/him/his) sbrowndebate at gmail
mcdonogh school class of 2008 (policy debater)
fullerton college class of 2021 (associate in arts)
4th year coaching ld for honor academy
previously coached policy for centennial, mcdonogh, fullerton union, river hill, atholton, & others
previously coached pf for capitol debate & others
speaker points aren't real everyone gets at least a 29
in a 100 judge ordinally ranked judging pool, here's how i would rank myself:
1 - you're a jv/novice debater and want to get a ton of feedback/tips for improving
2 - 6+ minutes of heg bad in the nc using 2020+ ev vs. the us unilat heg good aff
5 - k / "larp" / policy
6 - t* vs larp affs (*see 69 & 95)
10 - process/immediacy/consult cps when the aff doesn't go for theory
65 - baudrillard
69 - t-framework
70 - phil
85 - process/immediacy/consult cps when the aff goes for theory
90 - tricks
95 - "nebel t" / whole rez / spec t
96 - disclosure theory
99 - you read the "china should ban its own laws to benefit us unilat heg good" aff
100 - evaluate the debate after the ac
I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice
I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both
Keep me on the chain por favor – firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back
- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms
- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it
- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far
———- some more specifics ———-
I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well
Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too
On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.
On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.
Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically
on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible
Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.
I am a parent judge and new to be a judge.
Please speak slowly and clearly so I can follow you.
Hey! Add me to the email chain at email@example.com
I'm a traditional debater but am getting more comfortable with progressive debate. That being said, I'm not the judge to run your super progressive case in front of.
1. Speed - I'm not a huge fan of spreading so please take your speed down a few levels in front of me. If you must spread, do so at your own risk and read the room before you do - if it's late at night, don't yell/spread at me.
2. Ks/Tricks - don't understand them so don't run them
3. Theory - I don't understand most theory and think the majority of the time people read unnecessary/frivolous theory. Unless there is clear abuse happening in the round, don't read theory. Topicality is good and if argued well and when necessary, I'll vote on it.
4. CPs/Disads - I enjoy these and think they're a good strategy. If you're going to run them, defend them.
5. Framework - this is what makes LD different from other types of debate and I expect you to use. In your last speech, give me voters/weighing/framework and make it clear why I should vote for you.
6. CX - I really enjoy cross and definitely pay attention. That being said, I don't flow it so bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow. I will hold you to what you said in cross. Please be courteous to your opponent but as long as you're not being offensive, I'm pretty lenient on cross. Don't be afraid to push them to explain their case/get the answer your looking for.
Read my facial expression - I'm a pretty expressive person. If I look confused, please clear up your point. Nodding/smiling means I like/am following your point.
I believe that Congress focuses on speaking clearly and well more than any other type of debate. Because of this, the better you speak, the better I will rank you. Have sources in your speech! You saying something does not make it credible/true. Please be polite during questioning but that doesn't mean you have to be timid.
Evidence is important, don't make baseless claims. I appreciate organized, line by line rebuttals with signposting. If nothing else, this will get you good speaks. Weighing is super important, particularly in your last speeches. I should know exactly why I'm voting for you in order to get my ballot.
Final Focus should have impact weighing! Please be respectful of your opponents during cross. Cross is for asking questions, not personally attacking opponents or making statements.
Overall, I enjoy good clash, speaking, and cross. Please be kind to your opponents!
I debated for four years in policy debate at McQueen high school and qualified to the TOC (if that even matters). I currently debate for USC and qualified to the NDT twice when I attended CSU Long Beach. Currently, I am a speech and debate coach for ModernBrain which means that at times I have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. even though I judge policy more. For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.
Here's my email - please put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate whether you're policy or kritikal and am open to vote on anything.
Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto vote framework. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on framework. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? Literally, the fact that I coach some K debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage is so sad to me. So, for the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.
Some specific stuff:
T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. The China QPQ T and the Education Curriculum T allowed for some great conversations that were in-depth and allowed both sides to have good reasons for their model of debate. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). In high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) spending a ton of time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level of the debate. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the CJR topic, so make sure T is clear... I have seen 'reform isn't abolition' which I found to be pretty persuasive, but not necessarily unwinnable for the aff.
DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the aff and neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the aff rather than a super generic one (unless the aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.
CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible. With that being said, I don't auto judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: If you don't buy the CP kick it for us. Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.
K - I mainly go for the K, but that doesn't mean I'm a "k hack" by any means. I would mainly go for the k in high school, so I enjoy these debates. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth, HOWEVER, please try your best to explain k as well as possible. Just because I do read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alt.
FW - I think that engaging the aff is something the negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that you want to engage with the aff. The aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I go for FW against K affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a k against a k aff. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of affs that I see don't necessarily need to be untopical, so I feel that the neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)
K affs - I love a good k aff that is engaging. The aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I think the FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community about it. The big problem I've noticed with people running k affs is that they don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. Like I said above, I understand all types of theories and am open for any type of k aff. Against k's, you have to have a competing theory of power that solves for their impacts or avoids their impacts.
Policy affs - Not too much to say here. If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins.
Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate because a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. Debate for me has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me an advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC. It's a place where you can activate your agency. #AbolishTheCoachesPoll
Don't be sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Some literature I enjoy/read in debate - cap, queer theory, settler colonialism, critiques of resiliency, academy stuff, security, psychoanalysis etc. My favorite authors at the moment are Deleuze and Guattari!
I am okay with just about any argument you decide to make in round as long as it isn’t sexist, racist, elitist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted in any other way. Also, I’m some sort of mix of truth and tech. I think both are equally important to debate, so basically run what you want. Finally, please include me in the email chain if you can; my email is email@example.com. More details below.
Framework- You can run the framework however you like. Simply putting it, the framework with the least amount of undefended flaws pointed out in it will likely win this part of the debate. Winning the framework doesn’t mean you win the debate though; if you lose the framework but still uphold your opponent’s better, then you will likely get my vote.
Phil- I’m alright with philosophy as long as you can prove to me why it actually matters. Tell me what happens if we don’t follow this phil and tell me what happens when we do. Explaining the impact of your philosophy in relation to the topic is what makes it important to me.
Traditional Arguments and Advantages/Disads- I’m completely fine with them.
Counterplans, Kritiks, Theory, Etc.- Again, I’m okay with you running just about anything you want. If you run any of these things, please include me in the email chain to avoid issues with speed or technology.
Speed- Any speed is fine as long as I am included in the email chain. If that isn’t possible, then please speak at a relatively normal speed because I have difficulty hearing sometimes and it’s worse in online debates.
Email Chain- If you can, please always send me your case because I have hearing issues and we are also debating online! If you do, then I will be sure to catch every argument and you can speak at any speed you like. My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Debate success doesn't matter! Have fun and do what you love! Be a good person!
Hello! My name is Anna Dean (she/her). I will default to (they/them) if I don't know you.
Bentonville West High School '21 (AR) | Harvard '25
I've been in the Speech & Debate world for 6 years. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Do what you do & do it well.
Speed is fine (in CX/LD) (slow down a bit online & emphasize clarity)
Truth over Tech
If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism
I love a good cross-ex :)
Win an impact.
Number your args... please.
You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact.
DO NOT CLIP CARDS.
I like them if they're well done. I should say, I don't have immense knowledge of theory. I ran Fem, Fem Killjoy<3, Queer, Set Col, Cap in high school. I evaluate method v. method.
Yes! I love a soft left AFF. My ideal round is a soft left aff and 3-6 off.
I love T. Go for it. I think it's underutilized. I like procedural fairness impacts (when it's clearly an impact). If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceded generic blips and buzzwords.
I lean more neg (60/40). IMPACTS.
Yes, but they can get boring and overdone. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's cloooooseeee!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link.
I tend to think condo bad (55/45). Some teams try to get away with murder. Yes, I will vote on 'condo bad'. I lean neg when the CP is based in the literature and there's a reasonable solvency advocate. I lean aff when the CP meets neither of those conditions.
Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.
If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course, you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate policies & practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated 6+ years of her life to it and tries to make it better.
Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.
I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate.
I don't love theory/meta-theory/tricks. I find a lot of Philo debates have tricks.
I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.
See above for more specifics.
Speak well. You are role-playing a policymaker... act like it.
Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.
I value evidence and credible sources.
DO NOT re-hash args.
I love good intros and transitions! I love to laugh a lil in an extemp round!
Organization is key!
I value evidence and credible sources.
I stay very up to date on current events... I will know what you're talking about... take that as you wish:)
Best of luck to you! If you have questions feel free to ask me before a round or email me!
Speed is ok just be clear and emphasize key arguments
Add me on the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Quality of arguments over quantity of arguments
Cross important for speaks; make sure to utilize it well
Slightly truth over tech
I have done debate for four years now, and have experience in every type of event besides congress. My preferable event, however, is PF as it is the event I understand the most, and enjoy. There are sections in this paradigm that go over my opinions about PF along with sections about certain types of LD debate strategies that are used often.
It doesn’t really matter to me what you run. Follow basic public forum rules. If you spread or talk exceedingly fast I’ll most likely vote you down since that’s considered abusive unless the opponent just goes with it. At that point it’s fair game. In the rebuttals, make sure to be organized , and I prefer line-by-line with numbered responses if you have more than 1 response. Final focus should be strictly weighing and voters. No new args should be brought up in the summary and should be used for extending your own case.
I am more of a traditional LD debater. I am not one that finds debating in a progressive style enjoyable, However, when it comes to judging ,I really don't mind what you run. A major thing for me is that if you are to run a progressive case, you need to clarify your major impacts and make sure I catch on within the jumble of arguments you're spreading. Other than that, follow basic guidelines for spreading such as slowing down on taglines and etc. The following things are my viewpoints on the progressive arguments that could be used and just my basic viewpoints on clash and case arguments.
I don’t have much experience when it comes to arguing topicality, but I don’t mind the argument. If you can convince me that the opponent isn’t topical then that gives you some leverage. However, I don’t think that running just topicality and not touching any of the opponent's case is acceptable. If their arguments aren’t topical, explain why. Don’t just claim that they aren’t topical and not give any reasoning for why that is because at that point I’m not considering that as a legitimate argument. Topicality provides a way for good clash in a debate, but it shouldn’t be the only thing argued throughout. There should be other arguments ran so it’s not the only clash within the debate.
I really enjoy this strategy, and I think it provides a fun, creative spin to a debate. Disads should be relevant and not built with out-of-date empirical evidence. Their needs to be a clear link of why taking the action of the resolution is bad, and have a clear impact of why the argument is even prevalent or important. Counter-plans are fun to run, but should be realistic. It should be able to sell it’s point of why the plan should be preferred, and should have evidence backing the plan. I would like to see how the plan would be enforced also that way I don’t have to interpret it for myself.
I think a good case debate is important. I like case turns and outweighing impacts better than last minute arguments against the opponent's case being brought up because you were too busy trying to sell your own points. Defense is good, but their needs to be some sort of offense. Otherwise I have sat through a debate listening to two different sides of the topic without any clear turns or rebuttals,and I don’t think that makes for a good debate whatsoever. What ends up happening is entire contentions being dropped, and nothing for me to vote on other then who was a better speaker. I think debates should be more than that so make sure there is a genuine clash between the two cases, and not just you reading off your case and a bunch of backfiles of evidence just building already made arguments.
I have limited experience and understanding of this strategy, but I think that you should have a well developed Kritik shell when running this strategy. You should provide a general analysis of how it is related to the round, and have a clear link to how the argument is topical with the resolution. You should give a clear reason why I should vote for your K and how it should be weighed in the round. An alternative provided after the K would be preferable, especially if the implications of the K are applicable to the pre-plan world. If you are to go against a debater running a K, it’s important that you attack the framework of the debate as the kritik your opponent runs sets up the standard of the debate. I think it’s important that the opposing debater tries to control framework as it is a major part of any LD debate.
I also don’t have much experience when it comes to this particular debate strategy. I’ll vote for whatever as long as the theory is constructed well and clear as to what it is advocating. The theory should have the four parts of a basic theory shell (interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). The standard the theory sets up should be realistic, and be able to clearly show why the interpretation is good for the debate. The warrant should clearly give a reason for why I should consider your theory. The usual voter is fairness and education, but feel free to read any voter you think of as long as you can warrant why it is important for the debate.
I don't care what perspective you take when speaking on a bill. The more unique the takes, the better. I just ask that you don't be homophobic, transphobic, sexist, or racist. It should go without saying but be respectful and have fun!
Clarity is more important to me than speed.
Please weigh. It makes everyone's lives easier. Just do it.
Don't extend through ink. I won't flow it.
Warrant your arguments well.
Don't be rude or insensitive. Humor and puns are always welcome and will probably boost your speaks if it's actually funny.
Don't misconstrue evidence.
I won't call for evidence unless it will affect my decision or a team tells me to call for it.
Clear and accurate signposting will also result in higher speaks and will make the round so much easier to follow. Signpost. Do it.
I want a good, cohesive, narrative. Collapse. Don't go for the entire flow. Condense the round and give me voters.
How to get good speaks
Effective weighing and organization are the easiest way to boost your speaks.
significantly updated: 2.2.2021 (COVID-19/online update, see bottom & bullet points for easier read)
TL;DR for prefs: yes if you're trad, sure for lax and well explained prog, no for almost anything else. we will not vibe with anything else and I'd like to give you the opportunity to be judged by someone who has the capacity to give your arguments the credit they deserve.
TL;DR: I'm chill if you're chill. Respect your opponent. Generate clash. I make my decision however you tell me to.
**Control F if you're looking for anything specific. This is extensive and is mostly a combination of my friends' paradigms.
Hi, everyone, I'm Rachael! (pronouns: she/her)
I competed in LD & PF for North Allegheny (PA). I was pretty trad and made my appearance at a few national tournaments in my time. (I also qualified to and attended PA States, NCFLs, and NSDAs in 2019).
Now I coach at Olentangy (OH), am a camp instructor (LD @ CDC & PF @ BRI), and am a brief author/compiler (CDC). I study computer science (major), political science, and philosophy (double-minor) at Allegheny College (PA).
Email me w/ any questions about the round.
Side note: I judge in Ohio every weekend for Olentangy, but we use Speechwire so it's not listed below.
GENERAL DEBATE COMMENTS & OVERVIEW:
- Please don't be rude or abusive. (If you do not treat your opponent with respect, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks that tab will allow me to give)
- I believe in inclusivity in a debate. Proper pronouns, content warnings, etc. are all part of this as well. Use them. Be respectful.
- Signpost. Always.
- If you think you've gained any offense in CX, please mention it in your next speech. (I do not flow CX).
- If you're going to extend something across the flow, be sure to impact and weigh it. I will extend it, but I will not do the work for you.
- A PROGRESSIVE ROUND IS ONLY PERMISSIBLE IF BOTH TEAMS AGREE TO IT. (I would prefer to be a witness to this discussion so that I can ensure that this has been consented to by both parties). I will try to evaluate it as best as possible. Please do not expect me to be the 'prog' judge on the panel. I am, in every sense of the term, a traditional judge. (Note: I will be able to spot a lax version of a CP, DA, K, etc. Don't be that kid who runs progressive stuff at a traditional tournament, especially if your opponent has had little exposure to it or is relatively new -- "that's a war crime" - Dan Hepworth)
- I find this increasingly more important with the online format. Circuit debaters should make more of an effort to make rounds more accessible to trad debaters. I will not sympathize with your excuses for reading multiple offs against trad kids. You should have a trad case to read against especially novice trad kids. If you do not adapt appropriately, I will not hesitate to drop your speaks.
- I reserve the right to call for evidence. I will try to wait until the end of the round to do so, but if there is a lot of dispute over one specific card, I'll probably want to see it. (Please don't make me question your evidence, though).
- Please note that in most instances, I will only request evidence if there is a large controversy about it. Otherwise, I will only read or call for a card if you specifically tell me to (i.e., "Rachael, call for the card").
- (You should have evidence for a lot of the claims you make. Simply saying that it is a "logical" argument and that you don't "need" evidence to substantiate a claim will not only waste time, but it doesn't satisfy the normative obligations of a formal debate.)
- "Unwarranted arguments aren't good arguments" - Eva Lamberson.
- It is your obligation to not miscut or powertag evidence.
I am a fly on the wall. Debate in the style that you want to. It is always good to be adaptable and able to fit the standards of your judge, but it is also good to have a style of debate that is unique to you.
HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (LD-SPECIFIC):
Note: I did trad. I coach trad. I write LD briefs for CDC so I've usually read a decent bit of topic lit.
I try to be the best LD-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of an LD debate. Make sure that there is framework clash (please, please, please).
- Please, please, please give me a decent framework debate. This lays the groundwork for my decision.
- If you're linking in, follow through with that by showing how you better uphold the framework or better solve for the impacts of the round under the framework.
- Give me a better response than something that, at its root, is "their fw isn't good because it isn't my fw" or "my fw prereqs theirs" That does nothing to advance the fw debate.
- Don't spend too much time on the value debate. Morality and justice are pretty similar (note: not the same, but similar).
- "If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they're like 'my framework is rights' but it's clearly just util." - Eva
- Explicitly weigh under your framework
- At the end of the day, realize also that winning the framework does not win you the round and losing the framework does not cost you the round.
- For whichever framework that I buy (or still stands at the end of the debate), I will evaluate every argument within it. I will also take into account your voting issues so make sure to flesh them out and make them clear (please, please, please).
(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of an LD debate and I don't believe that I'm asking for too much of a deviance from that.)
**Do NOT read new arguments in the 2AR.
HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (PF-SPECIFIC):
Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.
- I will try to be the best PF-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of a PF debate. Make sure that you weigh your impacts.
- (PF defaults to util -- greatest happiness, greatest good for the greatest number).
- Scope, magnitude, and probability are just a few ways to weigh.
- (Be sure to meta-weigh if the weighing debate gets to that point.)
- I will evaluate which contentions still stand at the end of the debate and which impacts outweigh (but only through the mechanisms that you provide for me).
(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of a PF debate.)
**Do NOT read new arguments in the FF.
- Flex prep is fine.
- Don't call me "judge." Rachael is fine.
- If I'm nodding, it usually doesn't mean that I agree, but that I'm following your train of thought. I'm inclined to say that any other facial expressions usually mean what they suggest. I don't have a strong poker face so my suggestion is to adapt.
- I like when rounds are informal/funny/relaxed. I'll increase speaks if you make me laugh.
- I don't care if you stand, what you wear, if you swear, etc.
- I'll disclose if I can.
- Please send speech docs even if you don't plan on spreading. Connectivity can be spotty and I think it is for the benefit of everyone in the round. Speechdrop.net, email, doc link are all fine. Don't send cards in the chat and don't spend over 2 minutes trying to figure out how to share docs.
- If you send something from your school email, it will most likely take longer to get to us since we're out of your domain.
- Time yourself and don't abuse your time. I will not flow, evaluate, or even consider off time arguments.
- Don't be stressed if I'm not looking at my screen. I usually flow on paper so I'm not really looking and I have a second monitor, which is usually where my ballot resides.
- I don't care about camera usage.
- Mute yourself when you're not speaking and/or taking prep.
Yes, I am the girl who had the Lil Pump K read against her at Harvard 2018.
Good Luck! Have fun! :)
Hi! You can add me to the email chain: email@example.com
My pronouns are she/they (I will default to they/them if your pronouns aren't indicated).•° ✿ °•. For LD °•. ✿ .•°
There isn't much that I wouldn't like to see, but don't spread (it's online debate). I am a high school LD debater so run what you want.
Just be respectful to your opponent.━━━━━━━━━▼━━━━━━━━━
Hello I'm JD
put me on the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a sophomore at strake and quelled to TFA State this year
TLDR-tell me what to do and we'll have a good round. I'll evaluate whatever but I am certainly more comfortable with something than others
quick pref guide:
(This is more what I am comfortable evaluating but I won't hack against anything except explicitly racist/homophobic/sexist etc arguments but the higher on the pref sheet your position is the happier we all will be)
2.Comon Phil such as Kant
5. Tricks-in some scenarios
For those who want an in depth explanation on what I know keep going
Theory debates can be fun. Make sure to weigh between standards-keep it clean. I will evaluate all forms of theory like T, Spec, meta theory or frivolous theory. You name it odds are I will be fine. Extra speaks for making a creative WELL BUILT shell. If it looks like you threw it together without knowing what you are doing I will be sad. Make sure to keep a clean abuse story so I know what model I am endorsing. Please do not read a bunch of Dumb shells just to overwhelm your opponent. You have a better chance of winning from one well structured shell. On that note I am fine voting on frivolous theory as long as its not excessive. Reading 1 shoe theory shell=fine. 26 spec shells=mad judge and low speaks
you can change these easily and still make these arguments. If I end the round looking at my defaults no one in your round will be happy
Phil debates can be really awesome. I am very familiar with Kant Hobbes or other common Philosophy like this. Always err on the side of over explanation in any Phil debate. Make sure everyone knows what is right and what is wrong. Implicate your theory well to the round and take advantage of the nuanced Phil you have. I will boost speaks for having a creative Phil position that is explained and executed well but if you don't know what you are doing your speaks will mostly be a little lower than you want. On the other hand if you do really well here this is probably the best place to get high speaks
It feels like I should be able to evaluate these fine but in my experience these rounds can be very messy if not executed well. If you are going to go for this, please weigh. Weighing and providing a clear ballot story will get you wins here. Go for whatever you like here plans dumb cp's just have fun. As long as you weigh and then weigh your weighing and provide a clear reason your world is better than your opponent's we should have a good time here. Really good Larp rounds will earn really high speaks but the inverse is also true
I'll be honest I'm not incredibly comfortable with Ks which means you should not only explain your theory of power but also explain your ballot story very clearly since I am less familiar with the ways the k interacts with the ballot. Implicate the K to the aff specifically. You can still read your generic links and such but make sure that it makes sense in the context. I find perfcons very persuasive when responding to these types of arguments so make sure you don't link back to your own K. When responding layer your responses and win the theory of power is not true/bad. Here you can either get very high speaks or very low speaks. Tread this ground carefully and make sure you know your literature
Tricks can be a weird debate. Ill evaluate tricks and I do think putting a few small hidden tricks in your case could be strategic. On that note, overdoing tricks will not go well for you. If you expect to only win rounds on your opponent missing something, odds are I will miss something too.
Good speaks for being smart and prepared and making good strategic decisions
Bad speaks for being a jerk or being shady and bad Strat
I will try to average around a 28.5. If you get below a 27 there was a big issue in round such as problematic arguments where speaks are most likely not your biggest issue
(again these are easy to change so don't rely on them and I dont want to have to look at these after round)
Permissibility/Presumption negates unless they read a counter advocacy in which case I will decide which is closer to the status quo
I will call clear once per speech if you are not clear enough
prep can be cx but cx is not prep
Compiling your doc is prep-sending it isn't -but if you take an unreasonably long time I'll get mad
Any other question feel free to message me
I have experience in judging Lincoln Douglas debates for over 3 years.
It is vital to talk at a fast pace to allow you time to say what you want but slow enough to be easily understood.
I look for arguments which are both logically sound and supported by proper evidence.
I will pick a winner based on who best convinces me that his/her position is the correct one.
Have fun debating!
As a judge, I will look for the following in the debate
a) Don't spread too much. If you want to spread, please share the case with me in advance. I may hear your speech/argument, but if you do not give me enough time to process it, I may not vote on it.
b) Don't bring any evidence if the probability of the issue happening is very low.
c) Don't bring any new arguments/evidence in the final speech.
d) I prefer Quality over Quantity.
I will try to be as neutral as possible. Having said that It is your job to make sure I know your argument without having studied it myself.
Cabot High School Debate
I am a second year competitor in Debate, I have competed in Public Forum and Congressional.
Public Forum - Make sure to be clear and concise when it comes to the first constructive on either side, this is the only prepped speech I get that others are hard. Make sure that when it comes to your rebuttal that you do use all of your time even if it doesn't meet your standards for speech quality. If anyone goes 30 seconds or more under time or 15 seconds over time I will cut you off and you will be docked speaker points. Summary needs to be clear and concise meaning that you actually speak with moments in the round that have had clash. Final Focus, if either side brings up evidence that is new during the final focus, feel free to let me know and I will take that into account. Make sure that during your speeches that you signpost as well as line by line. I heavily pref this style of rebuttal and summary. I will take framework into account though it is not the deciding factor in the round. Weighing your impacts is the main deciding factor and if you do not extend any of them then you lose the round.
Congressional Debate - I like speeches that follow the format of having the intro and then clearly stating the points as to why or why not the legislation should be passed. I don´t have quite the extensive knowledge or Robert´s Rules as much as other judges may, though I know the general basis. The biggest thing is to make sure that you adhere to the rules and keep your speeches in time and questions respectful as well. If you are disrespecting the PO, Parliamentarian, or any other Competitors your rank will reflect based on the severity of misconduct.
Lincoln Douglas Debate - I have only judged this a few times so my knowledge is not very broad on the topic and this means that I keep an open mind. With this style I love clash on value and criterion make sure that you use this to your advantage. If you use up your rebuttal continuing your case or not attacking your opponents you will be docked. Framework to me is the deciding factor of the round if you lose on this you probably lose the round. I don't know what progressive arguments are so just bear with me.
If you have any complaints about my judging I will not be angry if you want to critique me, I will disclose only if the round is close enough.
My background: I was born and raised in Kansas City, graduating in 2011. I do not let personal bias dictate my decision. I qualified for Nationals in Lincoln Douglas Debate and made it to double elimination rounds (Top 30), losing to the National Champion. I do not say this to brag, sincerely, I just know how a lot of judges can be in this region so I want you to know I am very versatile and enjoy flow rounds as equally as you may see on the coasts.
With CX, absolutely anything flies. I have no problem with T arguments, CPs, or K arguments; I hold the traditional belief that in this type of debate the burden lies with the Affirmative. In order for the affirmative team to get my ballot, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, or at least those that are debated in the round. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues in its entirety.
With LD, I believe the VC can serve as many roles. I like the value criterion to measure or uphold the value. At the end of the day, it is a value debate so that holds more weight. I can't count drops unless you call them. Respect the intent of speeches (no new arguments for instance in last speeches) and I am okay with voting issues on the Aff last speech. The burden is equally on the Aff and Neg side to affirm or negate the resolution unless you run a more circuit style case. I prefer a more philosophical approach to LD- this can be completely rooted in evidence and real world analysis.
With Public Forum, speaking styles holds more weight than any of the other two. Hopefully, the debate is more complex than that and it truly is who made overall more persuasive arguments on what is deemed the most important topics by those involved in the debate unless left up to the judge.
For IEs, I specialized in OO and extemp (international). Make clear road maps, back your points- I will article check. I am very familiar with DI,HI, and interp events so please do not refrain from putting me there.
If you have any questions, please email me at email@example.com.
I am the most experienced with this type of debate, though I prefer a traditional type of Lincoln Douglas. I generally hate spreading because that should be reserved for policy, so I think it would be best for me and your opponent to slow your speech, while also being efficient with your time.
On cases, as long as the evidence or framework (fw) is not utilized to target a specific group of people, not overly offensive, and is topical, feel free to use whatever case and evidence you want.
I am not too familiar with Theory arguments, but as long as you can prove that those affect the weight of the evidence/fw of the round, I can vote based on that.
On Kritiks (K), I will vote for it as long it sufficiently provides a reason why to absolutely oppose Aff’s case and to vote neg’s better plan, or vice-versa.
For CPs, I am fine with whatever is ran and whatever issues that plan can solve in addition to what is negated.
For tech or truth, I will weigh more in tech, unless the arguments/evidence is outright false (i.e. Slavery = good).
For what I am least familiar or comfortable with, I am not sure about LARP or Phil.
-In Phil, I am familiar with most (but not all) of the schools of thought but I have not really adopted any type of thought, so I'm more or less a Phil blank slate at the moment. If you have a Phil section/case, please make it easy to understand and not dense so that I can follow along with the flow.
-For LARP, I haven't fully grasped the concept of this type of case but it seems to rely heavily on policy-esque practices, which I do not wish to judge. If that is what your case is about, keep it to a level where I can understand it as an LD judge, not as a policy judge.
Finally, on tricks. I'm fine with presumption if that is your angle but don't make purposefully vague to gain the upper-hand on your opponent; that's just unfair. If you run that anyway, I will not vote highly in your favor.
Other notes: I also enjoy some pop culture (i.e. current memes) and historical references, so I will add on speaker points if you include something of those in your speeches and if done correctly. Other than that, good luck and have fun.
I'm not entirely familiar with this type of debate, but I know it functions nearly the same format for LD, so expect some of my judge philosophy to overlap between the two. Generally, I think you can run whatever you want, but make sure it doesn't target specific people and/or is overly offensive. With that, also make sure it is topical as well.
Make sure you extend case and clash with the opponent(s). If there are dropped args on either side, they are dropped and cannot be brought back up. Also, do not bring up new args in response speeches nor final focus.
Make sure the impacts are clear. While you can tell me all of the links you can make into your arguments, it doesn't mean anything if there are no clear impacts. Along with that, crystalize and give me clear voters as to why I should for you during final focus.
Signposting/Roadmaps are also recommended, so I know what to write for what. Make sure you also make the taglines and authors clear. With that said, I will not tolerate spread/speed speaking, so if that occurs, I will stop flowing. Other than that, good luck and have fun.
This is the type of debate I am least experienced in judging-wise, so do bear in mind if I do not cover everything.
Just make sure you speak clearly and are persuasive doing so. I don't want to hear a bunch of garbage talking points just because you need to get your speaks; try to at least care about the bill/resolution at hand. Make sure to signpost your speeches as well.
If you are not entirely sure how a procedure is run, it is not harmful to give a point of information. Make sure you also know how each motion, point, etc. from Robert's Rules of Order before you spout out anything.
Lastly, the Questioning Period is a good way to get speaks and to also make the session more interesting. Try to make sure you are least somewhat involved with this part of the session, or else it will become the drabbest and most insipid session in our NSDA careers. Other than that, good luck and have fun.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi! My name is Evan, and I'm a sophomore at Strake Jesuit. I've debated for the past two years, and I qualled for state this year and broke.
I'll vote on literally anything that isn't explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant. I really don't want to have to not buy a good argument just because you never extended a warrant, so please don't put me in that position. To get a clear understanding of the args I'm most comfortable with, you should probably check out my current wiki or the one archived from last year. More below though.
Judge instruction is very good. i'll evaluate the flow 100%, but it'll be easier for you to get high speaks if you make it easy on me
Signpost - it's easiest for me to flow top down when I'm judging, but that doesn't really work if i don't know what argument you're answering/addressing.
I think I'm pretty good with speed, but if you're unclear, I will say clear 3 times. After that I will stop and dock speaks. That being said, please don't get upset if I didn't vote on an argument when I literally say clear 3 times and don't understand a thing you're saying.
I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.
Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc on email, but you do for compiling a doc.
Here are some specifics
Non-T-4-5: I don't have a ton of experience against this stuff. I've definitely gone for T framework but mostly I go for a K against a non t aff so take that how you will.
One winner and one loser (unless there's like an extreme circumstance)
Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3
~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.
T > Theory
1AR theory > 1NC theory/2NR theory
Fairness over education (If you didn't read them as voters, then neither will be evaluated obviously, unless nobody points it out, and you both debate under the assumption that they're voters)
DTA unless it's like a spec shell or something that is irreversible, then DTD.
Presumption Negates unless neg reads an alternative advocacy and is going for it by the end of the 2NR.
Hi! I am a junior at St. Mary's Dominican High School in Louisiana. I've been competing in Speech & Debate since the 8th grade. I competed in PF for two years before switching over to LD, so I am familiar with the jargon for both of those events. If I'm judging you, the likelihood is that you're only in middle school, so I'll always take that into account when assigning speaker points.
If you have any questions, my email is email@example.com
The following are just a few things to keep in mind throughout the round:
- Always be respectful. In CX, I understand that you might need to interrupt your opponent if they're going on a long-winded rant, which is totally fine. However, please avoid shouting over your opponent and being overbearingly rude. The attitude throughout the round will definitely affect your speaker points!!
- Regardless of whatever debate event you are competing in, all of your arguments should have a claim, warrant, and an impact. If you can provide these, I'll listen to whatever argument you have to offer. In addition, make sure to extend the argument in your speeches. If you make a great argument in your first speech but don't bring it up after that, I'll be very disappointed.
- Note: please don't make arguments for the sake of making an argument; I prefer quality and relevancy over quantity.
- Make sure all evidence is properly cited (author/author credentials/date/link). If you feel like something is off about your opponent's evidence, make sure to ask them for the card and call them out on it! And, if I feel like there is something off about your evidence, I will most likely ask you to send it to me. If it doesn't meet the standards, I just won't weigh it.
- Regardless of how fast you're speaking, I will probably be able to catch up. However, spreading won't actually impress me--to the contrary, I prefer slower speaking where you focus on clarity and word econ. If you can make your argument using less words or in a shorter amount of time, then I'll be really impressed (meaning higher speaking points). Also, keep in mind that if you're competing in a virtual tournament, spreading might not go well over a spotty internet connection.
- At the beginning of every speech, please hit briefly on the value debate.
- If you're running a K, awesome. Just make sure to properly explain it.
- If you're running a Counterplan, cool. I think these can make for very interesting debates. Same thing for anything else in the debate--just make sure to properly explain it and tell me why it's preferable.
- I would really prefer to see both partners carrying their equal weight. For example, I want to see both partners actively engaged in GCX.
- Please don't get frustrated with your partner, it makes your team look bad.
- Make sure to bring up the framework debate, as it tells me how I should weigh the round.
Lastly, just make sure to have fun!
Hi i'm Rajat, Im a sophomore.
I used to do traditional and now I compete nationally in debate tournaments, so go for whatever argument you want.
I did LD in high school with varying degrees of success. I have been out of debate for a while so please don’t spread at 100% speed. Be clear and slow down on what is most important to your argument. Tech > truth (usually). Don’t be racist/sexist/transphobic. Specifically, I will not vote for arguments premised on racism, sexism, transphobia, etc, and speaks will be dropped if you say exclusionary and hurtful things in the round. As long as everything is clear, I will judge your arguments and will not take into account style, level of experience, manners, etc.
This is what I did the most in high school. I read a lot of Baudrillard and lefty stuff, so that’s what I know the best. However, I am willing to accept any sort of K and am familiar with most of the literature. I appreciate clear structure in Ks and if you use the same argument for different parts of the debate that needs to be clear. Because I know this the best, I might have some biases toward it. However, I will not default to K over other args like theory or policy and will be annoyed if you don’t understand your own arguments/don’t know how to run a K. K affs and nontopical affs are fine but I will be annoyed if you aren’t prepared against T.
I know a lot about phil and read a lot of it in lower level debate. If you are mixing this with theory you can try to be tricky, but sacrifice clarity at your own risk. If I don’t know exactly how phil and theory intersect and what their effect is on the round by the NR/2AR then that is on you. Otherwise, do what you want.
Fine with tricky stuff I just need you to tell me the implications of theory directly by the end of the round. I am a bit biased against disclosure theory, but will vote on it if you win the argument. Theory and Ks can interact on the same level and I don’t presume theory > K. Meta theory > theory. I prefer competing interps and drop the arg. Text > spirit of the interp.
Fine with this as well but I have less experience running it. I will probably be the harshest on truth>tech for policy. If you say something that is categorically false and I have to decide the debate on it, I will be annoyed. Please weigh impacts. If you don’t you will probably lose.
I competed in IE and Debate at Marshall University for two years years; I currently am a LD coach for Brentwood Middle School and PF coach for Paul Laurence Dunbar HS. I've been exclusively judging LD and PF this season, so I understand most of the terminology that you could throw at me. If this preface to my paradigm worries you, I encourage you to read the rest of my paradigm anyways, it may change your mind (and always feel free to ask me questions in person).
Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points, though this isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop vs tabrooms file share). firstname.lastname@example.org
AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text).
T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters.
Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument, but will vote on drop-the-debater if that argument is warranted out to me (though my threshold for voting on drop-the-debater is pretty high). I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Aff's, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Aff's running Disclosure Theory against Neg's is a viable strategy in front of me.
CP: I don't have a strong personal opinion on conditionality, but I lean towards disliking conditional CP's- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is a little risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.
K: I love critical arguments and, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world. Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to drop the AFF, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.
DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff.
CP: Pretty much the same thing as the K paradigm here. I need to understand what your advocacy is. The only large difference is that I am more than happy to vote on a conditional CP in comparison to a conditional
Tricks: I don't particularly like tricks that are like "RESOLVED means vote aff" or something silly like that. I do, however, enjoy "tricks" where a voter is hidden in an advantage or where there is a double link on an argument that baits the other debater to only attack one of the links. Just try to make what you are doing somewhat reasonable and I'll still vote on it. Skep and presumption are okay I guess, but probably not something I'd love to see in most rounds.
Profanity: I don't personally care. The college circuit uses profanity all the time and I think it makes people more comfortable speaking if they are one who generally uses profanity outside of the round. Just make sure that your opponent is okay with it before the round.
Arguments that I don't want to hear: Racism good, sexism good. In general, oppression isn't good and the risk of emotional harm to other debaters outweighs any 'educational value' of allowing those kinds of arguments. I'm generally fine with extinction good as long as you don't violate the above sentiments.
Speaks are based on where I think you will land at the specific tournament. This isn't perfect, but speaks never are.
30: You are taking the gold without a doubt. Literal perfection with no critiques for me to give you. Probably not going to be giving this.
29.5-29.9: Late elims (definition of this depends on the tournament)
29-29.5: More likely to break than to not
28.5-29: On cusp. Maybe break, but more likely to not.
27.5-28.5: Middle of the pack for the tournament.
26.5-27.5: I can clearly point out numerous errors in your performance.
<26.5: You messed up somehow. Usually cheating, being disrespectful.
LD (Traditional) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you scrolled to this section, you pretty much know what should be in a traditional LD round. Give me a solid value/criterion setup and good contentions. I'm fine with speed of course, but if your opponent isn't then do not go for it, especially in a traditional LD round. I'd prefer to not see you run progressive arguments against a traditional debater if that is the pairing in the round, I've always felt it is easier for a circuit debater to go traditional than vice versa. Any other questions you have for this area, just ask me in the round please (it shouldn't be too complex given the nature of traditional LD).
2nd rebuttal must answer all offense that was made in 1st rebuttal. If you want to drop an arg that only had defense read on it, that's more than fine by me. 1st and 2nd summary must extend all offense and defense they plan to go for in final focus. Summary and final focus should look really similar.
Speed: I can keep up with any speed the debaters are comfortable with. I will not be the limiting factor; your opponents determine how fast you can speak in a given round. Don't spread against opponents that cannot keep up with it. That being said, don't spread over paraphrased evidence. You can't expect me to get both the citation and the implication when they are read in four seconds.
Weighing: I need extremely clear weighing at the end of the round. Weighing arguments introduced in final focus are new arguments. I prefer weighing to be introduced as early as possible, but summary at the latest. Weighing must have warranting. Just saying "prefer on scope" doesn't tell me why scope is the weighing mech I should use.
Evidence: Paraphrasing is OK in PF. Slow down on the citations though so I can get them down as well as what you are paraphrasing (since I have less time to type than I would in a circuit LD format). All evidence has to be accessible to your opponents (and to me should I call for evidence after the round). Give evidence in an efficient manner. I won't start your prep time on reading evidence until your opponents hand it to you and you start reading and I'll stop your prep when you stop reading. I usually won't call for evidence after the round unless you tell me to, but there are some exceptions that I won't go into detail on here.
Post-Round: If the tournament allows it, I will disclose so that you know what to be doing in your next rounds. I do this in hopes that it makes your round more educational and my adjudication of it more beneficial for you. Do not post-round me. I understand that losing a round is frustrating (I've been there too, ya'll), but I made my decision as best I could and cannot change it after I disclose. If you think I missed an argument that should have won you the round, then you should take that as an indication that maybe there is a way you can improve how you delivered that argument. Nobody likes post-round debates, just don't do it.
Progressive Arguments: Any of these arguments are fine in front of me when done well (you can read my circuit LD paradigm to see my thoughts on them in general). The caveat here is that you should tailor the arguments to allow your opponents to engage with them. Reading progressive arguments because you know your opponents aren't experienced with them is abusive. You can run them, but explain the tech clearly so that they have an opportunity to engage with them please. I liken this to how you probably shouldn't be super techy in front of novices for the sole purpose of an easy win.
Anything else: Just ask me before the round and I'll let ya know.
1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can.
2. Please call me Ethan not judge
3. Disclose your case prior to your speech
I debated LD for 2 years at Strake Jesuit (I'm a sophomore/rising junior). I qualified and broke at TFA State sophomore year, and I have 1 career bid. Contact me/add me to docs at email@example.com
You can call me "Michael" -- "judge" is fine but weird to me.
I'm tech > truth and I'll vote on anything.
Phil - 1
Tricks - 1
Theory/T - 1
Reps K's - 1
LARP - 2
K's - 3
Traditional - 4
- Spreading is fine
- Keep local recordings of speeches - if there's a technical error and you don't have one I'll doc speaks
- I WON'T read off the doc, but I'll have it open and glance at it to make sure I know where you are
- I'll call "clear" if I can't understand you as many times as needed - I WON'T doc speaks or anything if I have to call clear I'll just miss some arguments if you're not clear.
- I'll disclose speaks just ask
- I'll flow CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.
- Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.
- I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.
Do whatever you want just do a lot of weighing both on the impact level and evidence comparison and I'll be happy.
I'll judge kick the CP (if it's condo) if you tell me to but if you don't make the argument I won't.
I love impact turns
Politics is cool
Defaults: No RVI, Competing interps, DTD, Fairness > Education but don't make me default
I'll evaluate any shell no matter how frivolous
Make sure there's high quality weighing between voters and standards
Theory hedges are fine
Please slow down on the interps and short analytical arguments
Err on the side of overexplaining with clear arguments and comparative weighing in a semantics 2nr I don't know how grammar works lol
I'd prefer more specific arguments in the 2nr/2ar rather than reading off of a doc
I'm familiar with Deleuze, Baudrillard and Capitalism.
I won't understand super high theory K's so make sure you overexplain your arguments
Overexplain your alt, if I don't understand it I won't vote on it
I might not be the best at evaluating K debates so overexplain to me why you should win when reading a K
Floating PIKs are fine but please at least hint at them in the 1N
Alt solves case arguments that are specific to the aff are great and I'm persuaded by them
Non-T Affs are fine
This isn't my strongest suit so if you run this make sure you overexplain your aff in the 2ar and tell me why you win - if I don't understand your aff after the end of the round I can't vote on it
I like Reps Ks
I won't enjoy friv violations but I'll vote on them if they go conceded
I prefer straight up Ks instead of word PIKs but I'll vote on a word PIK if it goes conceded
I love phil debate
I'm most familiar with Kant and Util but I'm familiar with most frameworks read today
Please weigh between warrants
TJFs are fine
I like tricks
I generally don't like hiding tricks in big blocks of text
I'll evaluate tricks like any other argument
I'll be persuaded by spikes Ks
I'm fine with anything if it's well warranted
I'm fine with it, would prefer if you go faster
I'll vote on the flow even in traditional debates
If you are debating a trad debater make the round educational for them and don't read tricks
Cheating and Evidence ethics:
If you stake the round loser gets an L20, the winner gets a W30.
You don't have to stake the round I'll evaluate it in a shell format.
If you clip more than 5 words and I catch it you'll lose
Speak slowly and clearly.
State the resolution, as that is what is being debated
Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.
Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.
Be nice to each other.
Give me reasons to vote for you, and why the opposing side is losing.
Value extensions, productive clash, mild spreading, weighing. A professional demeanor is much appreciated. I do flow the round, so it would be helpful to have road mapping prior to speaking. LD is a value debate, thus a policy approach needs to stay within a value-based framework.
EDIT: If there is an email chain please include me in the chain ThompsonBillM@gmail.com
For both sides can we say the individual letters L.A.W.S. when referring to lethal autonomous weapons and say laws when referring to the rules that govern their usage. Otherwise, it can be super confusing for all parties involved.
In college, I competed in CEDA and NFA LD debate at Western Kentucky University. Since that time I have coached students in every form of HS debate and judged outrounds of all three at TOC and NSDA/NFL. I think all events have value and purpose and tend to reward debaters who think critically and provide analysis in addition to a litany of cards. As a general overview, I don't coach any more but that may be to your favor. I am not burnt out on any arguments I just want you to explain them clearly inside the round and that will be where my decision is made.
Policy - I typically default to Policy Maker paradigm. I will vote on theory but need to see unique abuse to vote on T. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end, it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time votin aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- I don't want you to go for everything in last speeches. Pick your battles and pick them wisely. Depth is rewarded on my ballot
- DA's I like specific/unique link stories that also have brightines and clear impacts. Generic arguments are not something I like
- K's are fine and I am open to hearing your arguments but I want a clear idea of how I evaluate the K. I also prefer K's that have specific links to the aff and not merely the world at large. I am NOT saying you can't run those K's, I just find that rounds where you show specific links to the Aff's advocacy have better ground for debate than rounds that argue about the general state of the world.
- Counter Plans - I like them. It may seem obvious, but after 20 years, I only ask you CP doesn't have the same issues you point out with the Aff's advocacy. I am not a fan of conditional Counter Plans and I urge you to be perm proof because I buy perms if the CP isn't Mutually Exclusive.
- T I will vote on it if you show unique abuse but I give Aff resolutional interp rights.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
LD - I will vote on theory but please run it well. I like old school LD but I am also open to K arguments too. I don't go in to a round hoping to see anything in particular except clash. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. The faster you go the better you structure & signposting needs to be. I also appreciate debaters who slow down a little for tags. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
- I typically prefer topical Affs but I will listen to anything if you justify your approach and stick to it. I do believe in one old school premise and that is that the Aff has THE burden of proof. To that end it is possible (though not common) for the negative to win without offense. If the Aff doesn't fulfil their burden of proof then I have a hard time voting aff. That said they could win a DA turn, K Turn, etc... Just making sure you know I don't buy "Without offense on neg you must vote AFF"
- In as much as LD doesn't have a standard structure I need some sort of Framework/Role of the Ballot in order to render my decision.
- Please collapse in the NR. If you go for everything your chances of losing increase exponentially.
- Not a fan of tricks
- Unlike Policy, you have a small amount of time. Word economy and decision making (what to go for) is mandatory to win my ballot. I don't like blippy arguments I like developed arguments.
- Speed - I can flow speed but appreciate debaters who slow down for tags the more complex and nuanced your argument the more you should consider taking a little time to explain the argument. Going fast to get out a lot of information is fine. Going fast to say the same thing over and over is a waste of time. speed is never a substitute for word economy
PFD - I am willing to let the debaters in the round determine how the debate is approached, but please explain your arguments clearly. Please do impact calculus in final speeches. Tell me where you want me to vote and I will look there first. Be as aggressive as you like, don't be rude. Your chances of winning significantly increase when last speeches start with "Even if..." statements
hey im shuban
do whatever you want just don't be offensive
tech > truth
how to get high speaks:
- be nice
- drop an anime reference during a speech
- speak clearly
Good luck debating! Remember to relax and enjoy the tournament. Debate can be stressful and cause anxiety, so don’t forget it is an education and enjoyable activity. I have debated throughout high school in Varsity Lincoln-Douglas. I am a traditional debater.
Framework: This is so important - it needs to be extended in every speech because it ultimately tells me how to evaluate the impacts in this round.
Contention-Level Preferences: I will vote for Kritiks, topicality, and counter plans. However, I have a strong evidence standard and expect to see well cut evidence in round if you plan to read any of these. I may also call to see cards at the end of a round to evaluate the round.
Cross-Ex: I do not listen during cross or voted based on cross. If something comes up in cross-ex that you want on my flow, you need to bring it up during the speech. Cross-Ex is your time to ask each other, but be polite or I will dock speaker points.
Speed/Spreading: Do not spread. If I cannot understand you, then I won’t have everything on my flow due to the lack of clarity in your speech. Clarity always trumps speed.
Stand while making speeches. You can sit or stand during cross. Do not speak rudely to me or to your opponents - it will affect speaker points.
I have judged both LD and Public Forum before, but I am relatively new to judging policy. Please talk clearly and avoid spreading if possible. When you send out speech docs, they should match your speech. If you cut a card half way through, feel free to say "cut card" and move on to the next. I will not flow cross-ex, so if there is anything important said in cross-ex, then take the time to point it out in the following speech. Finally, if I cannot understand you, I will yell clear, type in the chat, raise my hand, etc. If I still cannot understand, I will stop flowing and judge the round based on what I flowed. Please time yourself. My timer will be the final say, but having your own timer is highly suggested to help pace yourself. Please give a road map before every speech. If you have any questions, please let me know!
I am a Varsity Policy Debater for Southwestern College. I am currently a Psychology Major going to SDSU (No I don't compete for them, I like policy more than Parley :/ )
However, please do not change your style of debate to make it more policy debate friendly, DO YOUR THING! I will do my best to keep up!
So, with that said, I can flow pretty well. You are more than welcome to run any single argument you would like in whatever performative method you find best! Trust that I will be able to keep up and give good feedback!
I have judged for many high school tournaments. I have judged speech, impromptu, parley, policy, LD, PF, and Congress.
Below I am going to give my opinion on several argument types, however, while I may like some argument types more than others, I will always remain unbiased during rounds. So as much as I love K debate, you can still lose to framework or T.
T- I find T debates FASCINATING. They reveal the nuances behind the debate give debaters a chance to really show their intellectual capacity in being able to debate abstract concepts and articulate them in their own manner. I do however find T to be a little lazy. especially when against a K aff, because they are more often than not untopical, but a good T debate on a policy aff is always exciting to see, a good impact calculus on fairness can definitely win my ballot. Also,TVA's are one of my favorite arguments (I never run it, I just find them hilarious), so if you can manage to win why being topical is good, what it prevents, and how a TVA solves any of the 1AC's impacts + does not link to T impacts, you get my ballot.
DA- No strong opinions on DA's. I run them very often because turning a DA into a K creates a debate around the alt and whether or not it solves the impact and sidesteps the discussion of the link and the impact, which is pretty boring. Nonetheless, love a good DA with strong links and clear and succinct impact calculus.
CP- I LOVE a good counter-plan debate, its essentially an affirmative vs affirmative debate, except the neg team has more offense on the aff team, but suffers a lack of case solvency and defense. It showcases whether the affirmative can articulate its solvency whilst also creating offense on the spot in the debate, whilst also highlighting the negs ability to not only make good presump arguments, but also the 3rd option for me to prefer which, albeit, makes my job harder is much more enjoyable to watch.
Framework- My feelings to framework are similar to T, I find FW debates against K affs lazy, but sometimes I understand that is what some debaters are comfortable with and genuinely believe and are passionate about. I don't auto-vote framework and do not auto-vote on K's, I won't fill in any blanks for you on framework arguments so make sure you are CLEAR and ARTICULATE about what your interpretation of debate should be, why I should prefer it, why it's best for debate, what the other team did to violate it, and (in my opinion, the most important aspect of FW argument.) WHY I SHOULD CARE. Give me a clear argument as to why I as a judge matter, what my ballot signifies, and what happens if I don't vote for you. Framework is a particularly difficult argument to run, it takes a very skilled and well-rounded debater, but if you fit the above criteria then I will more than likely vote for you.
K- My absolute favorite argument style in the te. K's are incredibly informative about the way society functions in one-dimensional ways and how the assumptions we make about everyday activities should constantly be under strict scrutiny. K's are incredibly difficult (especially for a high schooler), they require a vast knowledge of the literature, well-articulated link arguments, clear impacts, and an alternative that is viable, solves, and does not link to aff offense. I love running K's and going against K's but that does not mean I will give you any leeway. I don't auto-vote K's much like I do not auto-vote FW or T.
Policy Affs- Not much to say here, good policy debaters have won NDT. Trust your case, extend it, show me why I should vote for you, and make sure to answer line by line so that nothing is conceded that may implicate the aff plan.
K affs- I run a K Affirmative as a policy debater, so I already know you are more than capable of answering T and FW, however,you can still lose to them so make sure you answer every aspect of the argument not just why their interpretation is bad. K affs are always very engaging (and if performative, all the more enjoyable to watch and learn). Trust your case, explain to me how you solve itnd why my ballot is important, especially when having FW, T, CP's, and TVA's thrown at you. You need to tell me why my ballot means something and how that translates to your harms being solved and why it's important that we debate about this. Bonus points: K affs are difficult to run at this level, but if you manage to describe to me why your K aff is important, why you as debaters performing the k aff is important, and why the debate that you are having right now with my ballot pushes us int he right direction, you will more than likely get my ballot.
Voter Issue arguments- If a particularly egregious event happens in the debate round, I typically give 90% leeway to the team that suffered the action, so it does not take much, but you still need to explain to me how it was bad for debate and why my vote is going to stop it (saying "the negative team misgendered me and this is bad for debate because _____ and your vote prevents this because _____" will work fine.)
Speaker points are given based on performance whilst giving speeches and during Cross-Examination. Nothing you say before or after rounds will affect your score. Charisma, effort, and conviction are preferred over bravado or aggression.
LASTLY: Do your thang. Be yourself. Do you boo boo. I will be able to keep the flow as organized as I can, signposts and roadmaps are always helpful. Trust yourself as a debater, you are here because of the work you have done, and win or lose your performance and courage in debating is more than enough. GO YOU!
If I can’t understand what you are saying, it will not be weighed in the round. You may still speak at a faster-than-normal pace, however, if you are confident you can still enunciate and be understood.
I flow all rounds and will weigh dropped arguments heavily.
LD is a values-based debate, so I expect you to present a framework, including a highest value, and address both levels of the debate throughout the round. During cross-examination, the questioner should exclusively be asking questions, not presenting information. The questioner should be the one to politely take charge of the cross-examination.
This is my first time judging and I have experience with participating in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. I especially like factual arguments that use statistics and reasoning. Framework debates that deal with the theoretical will often seem unconvincing to me. However, a well established framework that is based around a logical consequence would be great.
P.S.: Please do your part to help keep the round running on time. I'll keep track of time just in case, but I'd rather that you not make me police speech & prep times.
I am a parent judge and former competitor in Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debate. Please speak clearly. Please number and detail your voting points at the end of the debate.