Public Forum:

- I expect a true debate, without the technical structures of LD and Policy debate

- I vote for the side which argued the most-convincing arguments

- I believe evidence should be presented and utilized, but not argued over or leaned upon.

- I believe crossfires should have discussion. They are not cross-examinations.

- I expect professionalism and courtesy. You can't argue against your opponent if you don't understand them.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am relatively inexperienced juding an LD debate. If you want me to understand your flow, please be sure to walk through it diligently and with patience. You have a long time for a construct, so use it. However, I do appreciate when a debate consistently and appropriately ties arguments to the value and criterion, as that helps me understand the impacts of the arguments.

I’m a law student at Wake Forest. While I have never debated competitively, I fell in love with arguments, studying economics and philosophy in college. This is my third year judging high school debate. In the past, I have judged LD, PF, and Congress.

General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is about excellence in argumentation, and arguments are a special kind of explanation that uses claims, warrants, and impacts to lead its audience towards the acceptance of particular conclusions. Debaters should keep in mind that the characteristics of a good argument are the characteristics of a good explanation. While debate is more than mere explanation, good explainers and good debaters do the following well:

• use plain language when possible;
• prize clarity above speed or complexity;
• offer a complete explanation of their reasoning, which, in debate, means fully explaining the claim, warrant, and impact of each argument;
• use tags or "sign posts" to organize their speeches in an easy-to-follow way;
• emphasize key concepts or important points through their delivery; and
• keep the big picture in mind by constantly relating sections of their speech back to their bottom-line conclusion.

Many debaters are narrowly focused on beating the other side. While winning is the goal of debate, beating the other side need not be the only strategy one tries. An alternative strategy is to approach each round with the goal of making the other side better. You might try conceding part of your opponent's argument, charitably interpreting part of your opponent's speech, or helping your opponent adopt a stronger premise. Believe it or not, this strategy often wins because it demonstrates confidence in your own arguments and builds credibility with the judge. As an added benefit, it improves the overall level of debate.

How I Evaluate Debates

I take notes during the round (also known as flowing). As soon as the round ends, I reconstruct each argument, giving special attention to what each side told me were the decisive issues in their final speeches. Next, I evaluate each argument with the following questions in mind:

• Logic. Were the claims, warrants, and impacts of each argument fully explained? Were there any gaps or unexplained steps in the reasoning? Did warrants offer strong reasons to back their claims? Did impacts communicate the significance of each claim to the debate overall?
• Evidence. Did the evidence strongly or weakly support the claims it backed? Did the debater state evidence accurately, or was evidence overstated in any way?
• Responsiveness. Did the debater engage with the other side's arguments? Did the debater refute 'straw men' or the other side's actual position?

Understanding an argument is a prerequisite to evaluating it. Unfortunately, I have to disregard any lines of reasoning I cannot understand. An intelligible argument contains a claim, a warrant, and an impact. So, for example, simply saying "my side should prevail because Kant said lying is immoral" does not communicate an intelligible argument. That statement, apart from additional context, is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. I might happen to know that Kant thought lying was immoral because lying violates the categorical imperative, but a different judge with a different background might not. More importantly, by failing to explain what the categorical imperative is and why lying violates it, the hypothetical debater has failed to offer a reason why someone should accept their argument. Having failed to offer any reasons, the debater has failed to engage in rational persuasion at all.

Speed

I acknowledge the benefits of a fast round. Unfortunately, I can only understand 1.5x conversational speed. If I get to the point where I cannot understand you, I will get your attention by saying, "Too fast!" Keep in mind that, by the time I have the chance to speak up, I likely have already missed part of your argument.

Competition-Specific Preferences

• For Congress, I place emphasis on delivery and on how well speeches contribute the deliberative goals of the body.
  
• For LD, I want to see values-based argument somewhere.
• For PF, debaters should focus on empirical argument. Values-based argumentation should take the back seat.
• For LD and PF, points go to the side that can effectively place empirical evidence within value frameworks.

Style Preferences

I will always vote for the strongest argument. However, all else being equal, I prefer:

• A small number of well-coordinated arguments to a great many disjoint ones.
• Nuanced arguments that concretely address the resolution at hand. Ask yourself: Can this argument be easily recycled for use in other resolutions? If the answer is yes, consider tailoring your argument more narrowly to the resolution at hand.

Please include me on the email chain: aubssmith814@gmail.com

Hey everyone, I debated at James Madison University as a part of their policy debate program (2017-2021). I debated for 4 years, 2.5 of which was at the varsity level mostly as a 2N. I'm fairly new to judging so I can't give you too many pointers on how I've evaluated debates in the past, but I can tell you though that there are a couple of things I've noticed when I'm debated that could be helpful to you.

Experience: I'm mostly familiar with Ks, but I'm also open to a good DA and Framework debate too. Feel free to read whatever you're most comfortable with. I will be able to follow along with any argument as long as it has a clear explanation.

Speed/ Flowing: I have a hard time flowing online. It's partially a clarity issue and partially a hearing issue on my end, so please be sure that your mic is working correctly and that you are clear. I'd prefer it if everyone did a mic check before their speech just to make sure that I can hear them properly, but if not we can workshop ways to figure it out. Speed is much less of an issue for me, although if it is something like a Framework/ Topicality/VC (for LD) debate I would ask that you slow down.

Framework/Topicality/Parametrics: I've been in a lot of these debates, and am pretty flexible to whatever you want to say. One thing I would like to see in these debates is a meaningful, well-warranted impact. If you have pre-written blocks for these debates, bonus points for specificity. Too often as a debater I saw these framework arguments read without really engaging with the Aff, so if you are going to bring this into a debate (specifically against an Aff that is not the 'normal' policy Aff) please go beyond making it a cookie-cutter argument that you spend a < 1 minute on. Also, as a disclaimer, I'm not inclined to believe that fairness is the most important impact in a debate, but this has to be argued well within a debate for that to really matter to me.

CrossX- I flow CrossX as closely as I can. It's a speech(ish) in my mind, so you can also read cards during that time if it's relevant and can get you somewhere in the debate.

K Debate: Like I said above, I've focused a lot on Ks in my career, but I'm down for you to read other stuff as well. If you do go for a K, make sure that the link story is good and clear- I'm okay with voting on one link coming out of the 2nr as long as it is explained well. Alternatives also need to explain how they can resolve the Aff and links, although I'm flexible on how you say it solves. Debates are always better when there is more clash, so if you are purposefully vague about what the alt does coming out of the 2nc, I'm inclined to be skeptical of how it solves.

Policy Debate- Read whatever DAs work best for your strategy. Again, make sure your links are strong and that there is some impact calculus/ ethical framing as to how I should weigh my decision.

Tl;dr: Please be clear (and slow down if you're doing a T/FW arg). I'm flexible to hear whatever arguments you want to make in a round, but make sure links are explained well and that you have some way for me to frame my ballot at the top of the 2nr/2ar. Impact calc is a fine way to go for this, but if you have any other ethical framing arguments I'm down to vote for those too. Have fun debating :)

PS. Debate is an environment that can be hectic and frustrating at times and I understand that. That being said, try to be respectful and accommodating to your fellow competitors when possible i.e. disclose, provide trigger warnings when necessary, and send out blocks if requested.

I enjoyed my high school career as a policy debater. Later, I served as a coach and a judge over the course of the twenty-five years that I have been an educator. I am also a mother to a teen, so I appreciate the hard work that debaters dedicate to their craft.

Former Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debater in the 90s/ 00s. I have coached for nearly 20 years in a mostly TRADITIONAL circuit.

Speed is fine if taglines are clear, and as long as you don't treat debate like an evidence dump. My request is that you spend the time to weigh the impacts and implications of any argument you run.

I hate whining (fairness arguments) and attempts to win on technicalities. Don't tell me what the rules are- there is a huge discrepancy between rules and norms. I don't buy disclosure theory. Don't run it. You both have infinite time...

I weight the round holistically. I pay attention to cross-ex. Things said during cross can help and hurt you.

I enjoy narrative cases, if done well.

Be civil and nice. I. CANNOT. STRESS. THIS. ENOUGH.

Hello, debaters! I'm Linda Webb coach of Manchester High School, and I've been coaching for five years now, delving into Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and Congress Debate. While I may not have a formal debate background, my focus is on overall presentation, weighing both arguments and delivery. I appreciate a respectful tone between opponents and prefer a clear, measured pace over spreading.

**Debate:**

**Weighing Arguments:**
I approach debates with a keen interest in both the substance of your arguments and the way you present them. I value well-structured, impactful cases that are supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Remember, quality over quantity is key.

**Delivery:**
Effective communication is crucial. Articulate your points clearly, and ensure that your delivery enhances the persuasiveness of your arguments. I appreciate debaters who prioritize clarity over speed.

**Respectful Tone:**
Maintaining a respectful tone is essential. I expect debaters to engage in a civil manner, recognizing the importance of respectful discourse. Rudeness or disrespect will not be looked upon favorably in my evaluations.

**Congress:**

**Parliamentary Proceedings:**
As a Parliamentarian, I defer to the Presiding Officer to run the room efficiently. I actively observe participation, noting who is asking questions, making motions, and contributing positively. Participation and compliance with the Presiding Officer's requests are crucial for a successful session.

**Respect:**
Respect is paramount in the chamber. I expect all participants to engage in a respectful manner, and any lack of respect will be duly noted on your ballot. This applies to interactions with fellow participants, as well as adherence to parliamentary procedures.

**Speech Evaluation:**
In Congress, I look for impactful speeches that clearly convey the reasons why a particular bill or resolution should be passed and become part of American history. Make sure your speeches are well-organized, persuasive, and contribute meaningfully to the overall discussion.

**Conclusion:**
Ultimately, I'm here to appreciate and evaluate the efforts you put into presenting your arguments and participating in the debate or Congress session. Remember to communicate effectively, respect your opponents, and make a compelling case. Best of luck to all of you, and let's have a great round!

I did policy all four years of high school but I am also fairly familiar with public forum.

For Policy

Please try not to speak too fast during a round; the audio cuts out on tabroom and I will miss points. While I would not advise spreading on tabroom due to audio issues, if you choose to do it, please give a clear roadmap and signpost so that I can flow the round to the best of my ability. In policy, I do not like flowing kritiks, but I will do it... I am not as familiar with flowing them as I am other types of cases, however. I am a fan of weighing framework. Please weigh issues (tell me which issues are most important) as early as you can in the debate. I also like impact calculus. I also prefer if your rebuttals are line by line. In your last speech, I like to hear about the voting issues (no new points please).

Please let me know if you have any specific questions before the round. I like for debaters to take charge of the rounds, so I try to accommodate as best I can if you want to run a particular style of case.

For PF

I am familiar with this style to a certain extent. I am not going to know the jargon, so please try to explain terminology to me so I can flow your points. Even though I am familiar with this style, I would almost say to treat me as a lay judge.

For LD

I am not very familiar with this style of debate; please treat me as a lay judge.

Hi. My name is Laura Worrel. I am very much a lay judge but have been judging public forum for a couple of years. I prefer organized speeches that I can understand. Please make it very clear why I should vote for you. I will try my best to flow and make an informed decision. Thanks!