I am a parent judge, and I have primarily judged the Lincoln Douglas Debate and a few Speech events- but my real expertise is in the Congressional Debate. Don't be fooled that I'm a parent- that doesn't mean I'm easily persuaded. I have experience working in public policy, government, and political fields, so I like hearing the community impacts of a specific piece of legislation.

This isn't required, but in Congressional Debate, if the P.O. can fully state the name of a bill in the legislation docket before we move on to debating legislation, I would greatly appreciate it :)

I appreciate being passionate in debate, but please don't be rude to your opponents and maintain a fair and equitable game in debate.

Make sure you have evenly paced speaking and can offer good warrants and impacts for your claims, otherwise, I will likely prefer you less. I also prefer consistency with your arguments, so keep up with that- additionally, please make sure you actually know the context of the data you bring up in the debate and that you can explain your evidence well to other Senators in the chamber. Not everything that happens in the world and is analyzed is simply a point to further your argument- these are real-life events and implications that actually affect people. Bigotry is a big turn-away for me- please don't base your arguments on racist or misogynistic ideas.

Good luck to all! I trust that you are all well-versed competitors acting in good faith, and I have enjoyed seeing various Speech & Debaters grow over the years :)

I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

Background

I debated Lincoln Douglas for four years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, where I placed 9th at NSDAs and attended TOC.

Paradigm (LD)

The most important thing to winning my ballot is weighing. I try to evaluate the round as objectively as possible, so in your 2AR/NR you need to explain the layers of the debate and why I should prefer your arguments. If you don't adequately extend or impact an argument, I will have a tough time voting for it. Besides that, I evaluate all arguments on the flow. Below are some considerations:

Substance
I read all types of arguments in high school (philosophy, plans, disads, meta standards, etc), so feel free to read what you feel most comfortable with. That said, I especially enjoy nuanced and non-traditional positions (post-modernism, obscure-yet-topical authors, etc) , and will reward them with higher speaks. I award speaker points primarily based on organization and strategy. Please don't ask me to disclose speaks.

Speed
I am more than comfortable with speed, so long as you are clear (and I will shout "clear" or "slow" if you aren't). Please slow down for tags, plan texts, interps, etc.

Theory / Topicality
I see theory as a response to legitimate abuse, and have a very low tolerance for abusive arguments (multiple a prioris, PICs, abusive definitions, etc). I default to reasonability on clear-cut abuse, but can be persuaded to evaluate competing interpretations, assuming the abuse is not clear. That said, I do not enjoy watching theory debates, and would much prefer you point out the abuse to me as the judge, and get back to substance.

Kritiks
Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round. For that reason, I am most willing to vote on stock, topical kritiks (like neoliberalism, colonialism, biopower, etc).

TL;DR

Talk Fast. Weigh. Don't be Abusive.

Hi! I'm Chris Burkhard (he/him), and I'm a senior Lincoln-Douglas debater at Durham Academy.

Background

I've debated extensively on the North Carolina circuit, and have had some success on the national level as well. I qualified to the NSDA and NCFL national tournaments 2020, made it to outrounds at NSDA, and qualified to NCFLs 2021.

I'm familiar with most forms of progressive argumentation, but I mostly read CPs/DAs/theory. I'm not averse to voting off other arguments; just be aware that you will need to explain them well (as you should be doing with every argument!). Please also note that I'll have a pretty low threshold for rejecting progressive arguments if you're running them against a debater who's clearly less experienced with the circuit: debate should be educational for all parties; don't use these rounds as an excuse to get a supposedly easy win.

Email: 21burkhard@gmail.com.

Things You Should Know (LD)

Be respectful to your opponent. Especially in a year of virtual debate, everyone who chooses to take part in this activity deserves respect, and a heated cross-ex shouldn't get in the way of that. Debate's fun!

I'm surprised to see people have to mention it, but like, don't discriminate. If you are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or otherwise exclusionary, you will be dropped, you will be given very low speaks, and you may be reported to Tab.

I'm a flow judge. This is not an excuse to say "Extend contention 3, it was conceded," move on, and expect to win the round on it. I may understand what you mean, but jargon is not an excuse for clear explanation of arguments.

Also, please signpost. I want to judge well: you should probably make it possible for me to judge well. Clarity and organization are generally good, and if you get me lost on the flow, it will most likely work out to your disadvantage.

Being a flow judge does not mean that the debater who reads more evidence wins. Quality over quantity. Give coherent explanation of your key arguments and you can easily win a round without reading a single card in rebuttal (though cards have never hurt anyone).

Please WEIGH. I'm bad at this, so I know it's hard, but you're going to need to show me why your impacts matter most under the framework. Good weighing wins rounds and bad weighing loses them.

Voter issues are very helpful; please try to include them in your last speech. Voters are the easiest way for me to evaluate the debate, and if the story you tell me matches up with what the flow says, that's a pretty good formula for winning the round with high speaks. Voters which actually contain an explanation of the argument as opposed to just a random tagline will be much better received.

No new arguments in the 2N/2A. It doesn't give the other side an adequate chance to respond, and I just won't evaluate them. If it's critical to your strategy, you should bring it up before your last speech. :/

TLDR

I flow, but you still need to explain arguments well.

You should weigh! It'll help your ballot and your speaks!

Give voters! Same as above!

Signpost! Clarity is never bad.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the paradigm or anything not listed here before the round.

I know parts of this paradigm may sound serious, but ultimately just have fun with the round, and let your skill with your cases shine.

Good luck, and have fun!

Quinn Groves

I am currently a third year debater from the Cary High Speech and Debate Team where I’ve debated Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Big Question Debate.

General- I am okay with any argument that you run as long as the warrant and impacts are clear. Cards are important in the context of your argument. Continue to flow cards and arguments throughout the round if you want to win those points. I will weigh the round on the debater(s) who can uphold their framework in the round while also prioritizing the individual argument impacts. I am happy to give quick feedback at the end if prompted.

I'm a bad PF debater

just clash and weigh and itll be all good

I am a head coach and have been coaching for thirteen years. I thoroughly enjoy all of the events that our organization sponsors and deeply appreciate the critical thinking and communication skills they promote. For debate, I can appreciate a range of styles and approaches. While I don't mind a brisk speed when it is necessary to incorporate a variety of legitimate arguments in case or rebuttal, when it is used primarily as a weapon to overwhelm an opponent with accusations of dropped cards (in particular), I admit my patience can grow thin. You also don't have to win every bit of the flow (or pretend to) to win a round for me. You may even honestly concede minor points and cards/warrants. The important thing is to win the main arguments, wherever they happen to occur in the flow. Therefore, your job is to help me weigh what the most essential arguments are towards the end of the round. That is not to say that I don't value line-by-line coverage of the flow in rebuttal, and that dropped points are of no concern. And it is possible that accidentally dropping major points (usually by poor time distribution) could result in a fairly automatic loss. It's just that all things being equal, I value winning the major points of the debate over thoroughness of coverage.

Hi everyone!

My name's Folu and I'm currently a freshman at Yale! For some of my debate history, my main event in high school was Lincoln Douglas but I also did some Congress. I've attended a good amount of national debate tournaments throughout my four years so I'm excited to judge you all this weekend!

I don't have too many rules, but I'm mostly trained in traditional debate. If you're going to integrate progressive methods into your speeches like Ks, plans, counter plans, theory, etc. you'll need to explain them extremely well in case. Assume I have absolutely no progressive background. I'm flexible with most things, but if you spread I'll have to drop you. I need to understand your case and if I have no chance of following it then I can't evaluate the round.

To me, the best debate rounds are ones that put the emphasis on weighing impacts. Convince me why your argument matters more and point out how your logic and statistics are stronger than your opponent's, and you'll do well. Also, speaking with some emphasis and intonation can only help you.

I'd be happy at the end of rounds to answer questions related to your round! Remember to relax and have fun and everyone will enjoy our rounds much better.

I am a parent judge who has been judging LD in eastern North Carolina for the past two years. I appreciate the challenges and pressure that competitive debating brings, and as such insist that a cordial and respectful environment be maintained at all times. This will ensure space for the highest level of thought and expression.

The most important points that I respond to in a successful debate are:

1) Clear logic and articulated support. Preferably argued under an overarching structure where evidence can be understood through tangential relationships, and not a series of unrelated statements.

2) Composed and effective communication, including body language as well as verbal skills.

3) Intellectual agility- the ability to quickly craft and articulate thoughtful positions in a short time frame.

If these points are present I am confident that you will be a very strong debater, and gain as much as possible from these exceptional educational opportunities.

There are however a few things that hinder my ability to evaluate information and arguments as fairly as possible. Primarily speed is a detriment to my ability to synthesize the arguments being offered. Please no spreading. Also, as a lay judge I prefer traditional debate styles. Stay on topic and debate the merits of the given topic. It will allow for my fullest engagement and fairest evaluation.

Hey my name’s Sara (she/her) and I’m a junior at Durham Academy. I have experience in competing locally and on the national circuit in Lincoln Douglas Debate.

Things to keep in mind:

• IMPORTANT: debate should be an inclusive space. I will drop you and give you extremely low speaker points if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist, or discriminatory in any other way.
• For online debate I would prefer it if you have your camera on and make sure to record all of your speeches in case there are internet issues.
• Cross ex is one of the most important speeches in my opinion. Don’t just ask clarifying questions. This is where you get to directly interact with your opponent so make it interesting.
• I do have experience with progressive arguments (such as theory, counterplans, disads, etc.) as long as you understand it and are able to explain it.
• I flow. Make your arguments clear and PLEASE signpost. If I don’t know where you are there is no way for me to be able to understand your argument or properly write it on my flow.
• Have good evidence ethics. I might ask for cards at the end if needed so please make sure your evidence actually says what you are saying it does and that you aren’t misconstruing or lying about what your author is saying.
• Your last speech NEEDS to consist of voters and weighing. If this doesn’t happen it makes the round very difficult to evaluate. Also no new arguments your last speech, I will not consider them.

Speaker points:

• If you are a jerk your speaks will reflect that. There is no need to be rude during round and if that’s your strategy then you’re probably not very good.
• If you are able to articulate and explain your arguments with clarity I will give you good speaks.
• Don’t be monotonous. It makes debates very boring and if it doesn’t sound like you care about what you’re talking about then you probably won’t convince me as well.
• Bonus points if you make me laugh/keep the round enjoyable.

At the end of the day just make sure to have fun, debate is a game and my judging style shouldn’t affect your performance. If you have any questions before or after the round let me know and I will be happy to answer!

Hey everyone!

I'm Emily (she/her). I debated LD for three years at Cary Academy and am currently a first-year at Duke.

Some general things:

1. Be kind, be respectful, don't be rude, don't be condescending - The best debaters are those who are not only good at debate, but also are good people in and out of round.

2. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or exclusive. If you are any of these things, I will drop you, give you 20 speaks, and report you to Tab.

3. Try to have fun! Debate rounds are best when you aren't overly serious and try to enjoy the experience.

More debate specific stuff:

1. In the end, I'll vote for the debater who best advocates for their position. Being a good advocate is a combination of speaking/presenting persuasively, making strong arguments, and interacting with your opponent's advocacy. Weigh and impact your arguments. The more you weigh, compare the aff and neg worlds, impact your arguments to the framework, and paint a clear picture of what your world will look like, the easier it will be for me to give you the dub.

2. If you make an extension, make sure to impact it. Tell me why it's important that your opponent dropped that card or argument.

3. Coherent explanations are more important than being able to read a ton of cards and then extend them. If you read cards, especially in rebuttal, make sure it's clear how they connect to what you're talking about. As well, truth >> tech. Extending an argument doesn't make it correct if it doesn't make sense and/or you don't explain why it matters.

4. Voter issues are nice. If you provide voter issues, spend a little bit of time summarizing and impacting each voter issue. Voter issues aren't really meaningful if all you do is list a couple points without saying much else.

5. I don't really care for K's, theory, disads, and PICs. Plans and counterplans are ok to some extent, but it's your job to justify why your plan/counterplan fairly affirms/negates, why/how it will work, and why I should prefer it over your opponent's position or plainly affirming/negating. Feel free to run other progressive arguments, but I'm not going to work extra hard to try to understand something that you don't explain well. Also, I will have low tolerance for your progressive arguments if you are running them against an opponent who clearly isn't familiar with progressive debate and therefore isn't able to effectively interact with your arguments.

6. I find debaters are increasingly arguing nuclear war and climate change since they impact to extinction. If you're going to run extinction impacts, you must explain clearly how everything eventually links to extinction and how it is related to the topic. I won't automatically pick you up just because you extend extinction. I default to probability and realistic impacts unless you provide me reasons to prefer magnitude.

7. I won't evaluate new arguments or evidence brought up in the 2NR/2AR out of fairness to both debaters. Aff doesn't have much time in the 2AR to respond to new arguments/evidence that neg brings up in their 2NR, and there simply isn't a 3NR for negs to respond to new arguments/evidence that aff brings up in their 2AR.

Things that will get you high speaks:

1. I believe debate is a conversational activity meant to foster thoughtful discussions, so your pace and inflection should reflect that (i.e. don't spread or read highly esoteric stuff without explaining it thoroughly).

2. Organization is good. If you have multiple responses to an argument, numbering them is nice so that people flowing you can follow along and not miss anything.

3. Signposting and road mapping are good.

4. Be engaging - Make eye contact, vary your inflection, etc.

5. Conciseness and efficiency are good. I always find it really impressive when debaters manage to cover everything while providing thorough explanations without having to speed through their speech.

6. Strategic cross-ex is good. It's also really impressive when debaters use their cross-ex effectively and manage to get their opponents to provide answers that they can later incorporate into their rebuttals.

7. Be cognizant of your time - If your time runs out, and you need to finish your sentence, do that. Try not to run excessively over time; it's usually quite obvious if you are doing that.

8. Be present and respectful - Yes, as a neg, you'll be done giving speeches after your 2NR. Yes, during your opponent's prep time, you may not have anything to do. However, you should still be present and respectful to your opponent.

9. Make a well-incorporated bee pun - Spread some joy in the round :)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Good luck and have fun!