Debates

Policy

Games player, mostly. If you run it, back it up and tell me why you win the round (and the other side loses).

Lincoln Douglas

Value/Criterion clash. V/C have to flow through the case for me to consider it. Again, tell me why the arguments you're making ensure you win the round (and the other side loses).

LD isn't a forum for Policy debaters looking for something fun to do. Run LD as it's meant to be run.

Public Forum

Make logical arguments and tell me why you win (and the other side loses). Also, please remember: PF isn't Policy Lite.

Congress

All of your speeches (both authorships and all responses) need to be fully supported with evidence. Analysis is great but evidence is better.

Make sure that you're truly cordial to the rest of the competitors in and out of the round.

Interps

Humor/Drama/Duo

Remember that you're interpreting your selection, not mimicking.

POI

POI is great because it not only allows for interpretation but allows the speaker to make a point about a topic that they believe is important. Use that flexibility to your advantage.

Poetry

Not all poetry rhymes and, more important, rhyming shouldn't be what moves your poem forward. Interpret what you've performing--make it matter to you.

Oratory

Persuasion is key: make me believe what you've written/what you're saying.

Informative

These are speeches designed to be info dumps that intrigue me; your visual aid shouldn't be the only part I'm interested in.

Extemp

Formatting is key: it gives you a good structure to work from and allows me to follow along easily.

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

I love speech and debate! I was a competitor when I was in school. I will try to give you lots of feedback and be clear about why I make the decisions I do. I am primarily an interp judge, but I have some debate experience and I think a good debate can be just as fun as an interp/speech round. I look for good speaking skills, good use of time, polish (either for pops or contentions), and the energy that a competitor brings to a round.

If you are looking for debate specific paradigms, please ask at the start of the round.

Any post-round questions can be directed to my email: kahnwiley@gmail.com

CX:

My background: the last time I debated (academically) was at the college level in parliamentary debate about ten years ago. I was very competitive, regionally, in policy debate in high school.

My general preferences/skills: I can flow fast enough to keep up with you. I will provide feedback if I can't understand you; this isn't meant to be disruptive but to ensure that I actually catch everything you're saying. I am probably not familiar with topic-specific arguments. I have worked in the legal field and politics, however, so I probably know a little more about how the justice system works than your average individual. Academically, I have a background in political theory, analytical and continental philosophy, and psychology (specifically cognitive biases). Go nuts about the K's; I get down with the social/critical theory and I'd love to learn some new stuff (explained well) from y'all. Procedurals are cool, too. I'll totally pull the trigger on some cheap shot independent voter if it is extended through the debate and articulated well in the rebuttals.

Oh, I also tend to like wacky arguments. Not bad arguments. But I loved going for arguments like de-dev and wipeout when I was debating. Don't take that as carte blanche to go completely off the rails, but it's nice to have a little levity in this event, and not hear the same generic econ or politics disad in every single round.

I'm willing to disclose my decision as long as it conforms to the rules of the tournament and I'm willing to provide extended verbal feedback to competitors if so desired, whether immediately following the round or later on. Some judges don't like this, but I would prefer you ask me questions before the round: "how do you like this type of argument," "what's your threshhold for voting on a procedural," etc. This is more as a favor to you because I can't possibly cover every contingency in this paradigm.

Open CX is fine (as long as it conforms to the rules of the tournament).

I'm tabula rasa but I will default policymaker in the absence of framework analysis.

Impact analysis/comparison is clutch. Timeframe, probability, magnitude, yo!

On speeding through analytics/procedurals: in debates where the teams are speeding through a lot of analytical arguments, I find it helpful to get a little pen (keyboard?) time to both flow and comprehend these arguments. If it just one one-sentence argument after another, I sometimes have difficulty adjusting to the sheer volume of arguments being made. I may flow them all but I do not think I will be able to do adequate analysis of these arguments if you do not provide sufficient explanation of each point. For instance, if you want me to flow your procedural voters, just rattling off that something "is a voter for fairness, education and ground" might be detrimental, if there aren't individual explanations as to why fairness is a voter, education is a voter, ground is a voter. Obviously if time is tight in the 1AR you will have to make a strategic choice how to allocate your time, but I don't think it will be beneficial to you if the coverage is superficial and the import on an individual argument is lost in the shuffle.

Addendum about K affs: I have noticed quite the disparity between the circuit-style "K Affs" (usually performative) that have proliferated, vs. the traditional style of policy debate that is still practiced at the other 95% of tournaments. I am okay with kritiks and critical literature, but I have very little tolerance for these cases that are essentially being formatted in this manner for strategic (rather than ethical or educational) purposes. Do not expect me to clap my hands with glee because you read a poem during the 1AC, had a moment of silence, didn't read a plan, etc. I think it's squirrelly and exclusionary. I understand the strategy: it does really limit the options the neg has. But that also means that I, as the judge, have to hear a bunch of rounds where the 1AC is performative, and the neg runs T. Does this mean you shouldn't run a K aff? Not necessarily. . . But it will probably elicit a deep sigh from me the moment you read a poem instead of a plan. I will definitely be leaning neg on presumption when their strategic options are reduced in this (or any similar) manner.

On speaker points: I attempt to assign points according to a rough bell curve distribution between 25-30 (or whatever the range is for your tournament). If you understand how statistical distributions work, you know this means you will not get a thirty from me. If you receive anything above 29, you should feel very good about your performance.

Also. . . have fun?

LD:

I competed in LD briefly in high school. My primary background is in policy debate, so I'll be flowing. Obviously, speed is fine, but make sure the other judges are cool with it, too.

Questions? Feel free to ask before the round.

Be excellent to each other.

PF:

I did this the first year they tried it out as "Ted Turner Debate" (sigh). It's definitely improved since then. I'm a policy judge so don't worry about going over my head. PF is very much about style and presentation, so I'm going to be placing a lot more emphasis on speaking skills, tone, nonverbals, etc. I view it as kind of a speech/debate hybrid: less analytical than policy but slightly deeper than StuCo. Not to undermine the value of argumentation (you will probably lose if your arguments suck), but I find that these PF topics are often politically loaded so as to be heavily biased toward one side or the other. I usually am aware of this and will not vote against you simply because you got stuck arguing for something that I absolutely morally abhor. Jokes are good. Politeness is good. Actually knowing what you're talking about is best. Above all, have fun!

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.

WSD:

I judged this for the first time at nats in 2021 and rather enjoyed it. My related background: I competed in policy, LD, PF, extemp, humor and student congress in high school; in college, I was a member of the student government and competed in parliamentary debate (not British Parliamentary, which is the norm now, and much closer in format to WSD). At this point I have judged a far greater number of rounds than those in which I ever competed.

I will be "flowing" your arguments in a loose way but I will pay a lot of attention to delivery and presentation; I care less about a neat flow than getting a cohesive "story" from both sides. Answering arguments is important, but providing a solid case and returning to that original structure throughout your speeches is going to make your team look stronger overall.

Parli:

I debated in parli briefly in college. My paradigm for parli is roughly the same as my CX paradigm except you won't be reading cards to support your positions. Badgering your opponents with POI's is kinda a jerk move, but IMO, POI usage is a big part of the strategy of this event; honestly, it will reflect more poorly on the team being badgered if they do nothing to shut it down and allow their time to be monopolized by incessant interruptions from a more dominant team.

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

Interpretation events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries. Please do not chew gum.

Speaking events paradigms:

I have no problem with materials that are edgy or considered "triggering" - this are events that are meant to raise awareness of issues and to allow competitors to push boundaries.

Debate events paradigms:

I expect competitors to speak clearly and not race through their points. Quality over quantity is important to me. If I can't understand you, then I have a hard time voting for your side. I like evidence, evidence, evidence. I want your points backed up with valid sources. I expect civility - debate can happen without being rude and disrespectful.

One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.

The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.

I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.

Experience: I am a senior at the University of Iowa where I study political science, international affairs, and philosophy. I was a competitor in public forum for 6 years and was the collegiate national champion in 2018. I have experience and working knowledge with all speech and debate events. I have previously coached in Des Moines, Iowa, and for NSDA China. I am currently unaffiliated with any team, school, or individual competitors.

PF: I value accessibility. Public forum ought to be an event that is able to be understood by any member of the public. Clear, concise communication at a reasonable speed is expected ie conversational. I WILL DROP YOU IF YOU TRY TO SPREAD. Each team will be given one warning on speed in the form of a dropped pen or calling out “Speed.” If spreading/speed persists after the warning I will immediately drop the team with the most violations. (If both teams accumulate one violation in their respective constructive, the next team to violate will be dropped.) I will flow cross-examination if you make important points. I value complex arguments and respectful clash. Being rude in my rounds is a great way to lose speaker points and a round.

Important things:

- If at all possible, I would like to start rounds early. I understand that's not always possible or teams need to prep, so I'm just appreciative if we do start early. No problem if you need to take your time though.

- While in evidence exchange, I expect all students to have their hands on screen and mics unmuted to ensure that time is not used for prep.

- Summaries should SUMMARIZE the round.

- FF should Crystalize not line by line, give me impact calculus and weighing. Impact calc within every speech is most persuasive.

- Summaries and FF should have voters not line by line.

TL;DR, Be respectful, conversational, bring solid evidence and analysis to my rounds and you’ll do fine.

LD/CX: Pretty much anything goes. I absolutely prefer arguments that are directly resolutional (ie not a fan of certain Ks, love me some T and theory though) but if the debate goes a certain way, it is not my place to wrangle it. LARP is chill. On the rare occasion, I may ask you to slow down a little bit or clear you, but that will not be weighed against you. I'm almost always good with speed. I prefer competitors disclose to ensure flow clarity. I will flow cross-examination if you make important points.

I am a very traditional judge for all events. 

LD - This is a value debate, so both debaters should have a value and criteria with which to weigh them. The debate centers around whether something should be done, not how it can be done. I don't want to see plans or generic critiques, or hear that we cannot solve. LD is about whether an action is good, moral, right, practical, maybe even feasible, but not about the nuts and bolts of implementation. There should be philosophical arguments, and direct clash. Everyone needs to ne nice, and speed should be kept to a comfortable flowing pace.

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

LD: I am a flow judge. Rarely do I vote on anything that is not on the flow for the round. Sound reasoning and logic are really important. I do not buy arguments ad absurdum. So, even if there is an argument on the flow, it must logically follow for me to find it persuasive. Debate is also a speaking event. Proper presentation is almost equally important as substance; though a reliance on rhetoric will not win my ballot. Breadth does not equal depth.

Congress: The event is called "Congressional Debate" for a reason. That being, while the format is different than a traditional debate round, it is still debate nonetheless. Logic and reasoning are important. Sources are very important to me. While we all think that we are experts on a given subject, none of us are. Rebuttals (just like traditional debate) are very important. Arguments must flow with the standing arguments for or against the legislation.

Tabula Rasa. I am willing to hear any argument. Counter-plans, Kritiks, etc. are okay. I debated Policy 4 years/briefly in college and can keep up with speed if necessary.

My biggest paradigm is to be respectful to your opponents. I want to see a clean fair debate. I want debaters to speak clearly and don't rush so fast that I can't understand them.

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

The debate space is one for you, not me, so do as you please. Anything goes, have fun, do your best.

Congress

I have limited experience judging, so go easy on me. I will be flowing arguments on my computer so don't feel the need to look at me. I am not much one for pathos as I am for ethos and logos so take that into mind.

LD

I weigh the debate based off the value/criteria. The person who best meets these is the one who wins, and if neither side provides one I may be obliged to vote neg on presumption. Winning that you have a better value is not enough to win the debate. Winning that you meet the criteria wins you the debate. Citing that they broke a rule (besides lying about a card) probably won't get you very far with me. I am an anything goes judge, so run as you please as long as your opponent is not skewed out of the round.

CX/PF

I will divert to a cost/benefit analysis if a framework is not given. I also assume the negation is status quo if a counter advocacy is not given. Citing link/impact turns will get you very far with me as it is easy offense to apply across case. If there are card contentions I will read them at the request of the debaters. Generally I think speed has its limit, so go fast but not so fast that I can't get your taglines. I have 4 years of collegiate debate experience but I am not a god at speed. Also, be nice during cross. I find pompous people won't lose on attitude but may be deducted speaker points.

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

Updated 4/11/24 for the Chance National Qualifier - GOOD LUCK TO ALL competitors

I admire and appreciate your skill, ability and preparation. As Adam Smith articulated in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, I work from the assumption that you are all praiseworthy. And, like Aristotle, I view our time together in this activity as a journey toward the good.*

Summary LD Expectations

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.
2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on your value. Clarity and defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.
3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolutional analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation.
4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate, critique, or counter plans.
5. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.
6. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. PS, if Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that is is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.
7. In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round
8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.
9. Simple is preferred to the complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over many arguments that are complex.
10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.
11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. The March/April 2025 topic has often hinged on definitions. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE not cards or debater math.

Don't worry *(be happy) as I will cut and paste this paradigm into my ballot. But alas, that is after the fact. Oy.

I am appreciative and grateful to have this opportunity. IE and speech I do have comments for you after my "sharing" with debaters. Skip to the end.

You are the teacher, I am the student. As my teacher, you will want to know my learning style.

I am curious and interested in your voice and what you have to say. I am a life long learner and as a student I make every effort to thoughtfully consider your teaching. so . . .

1. I take notes (flow) in order to understand. So, a metric for debaters - think of me on the couch with one of your grandparents, Joe Biden and Morgan Freeman. We are all very interested in what you have to say and we are all taking notes. So, be certain your pace allows us to take notes (flow) with comprehension. If you are doubtful about the pace you are using, YOU ARE SPEAKING TOO FAST and should slow down. Thank you very much.
2. As your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I sit on the couch we are striving to learn new material from you. You know far more than we do, you are very familiar with how to convey this information and we all think much slower than you so - KEEP IT SIMPLE. I would advise checking all debate jargon at the bus, before you enter the building.
3. Less is more. So, if you have 2 to 5 high level arguments and feel compelled to advance them, go for it. But as the round comes to an end, focus on ONE and make certain you explain it so that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I can understand. I was fortunate earlier this year at the 2024 ARIZONA STATE TOURNAMENT to judge an out round of LD on a panel with a young, policy TECH judge and another parent. In a 2-1 decision, I was soooooooooooooooo pleased that, in post round disclosure and RFD this young, policy TECH judge recommended that the two excellent debaters collapse to the ONE argument that they considered most important (ie the argument they were winning). I was overjoyed as I have always indicated one simply and well explained argument will always capture my ballot over the old laundry list. In other words DO NOT RUN THE FLOW in 3rd AFF speech merely explain the ONE argument and weigh the voters. One other outstanding piece of feedback from this young, policy, TECH judge was to look at the judges - he, like I, react to your argumentation - nodding and smiling when we understanding and are convinced and frowning or shaking no when we are not. I noticed he did this in the round and, for those of you who have argued before me before, you know that I light up when you have me and if become despondent when you don't. Useful in round feedback from the judge is GOOD. I know you all have strategy based upon some interpretation of game theory when arguing before a panel. Remember you will most likely have 1, 2 or even 3 parent, lay judges on the panel. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND DEBATE THEORY, CANNOT PROCESS ARGUMENTS DELIVERED AT A RAPID PACE AND NEED SIMPLE, SIMPLE SLOWLY PRESENTED SIDE BY SIDE ANALYSIS.

Anything else?

1. I see LD as an exploration of value, that is values debate, therefore I am most interested in learning your take on the value your have selected in evaluating the resolution. I am not interested implementation, rather the key is how the value you employ affirms or negates the resolution AND why that value is superior to the one selected by your opponent. It is ok, very ok, to concede value. It goes without saying, but I will anyway, that you should understand your value and provide a simple clear definition. Soooooooooo there is Justice, Social Justice, Restorative Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Retributive Justice, Environmental (???) Justice, Economic Justice, Global . . . . well you get the point. Which one are you arguing for? If you don't specify then your opponent may, to your disadvantage, If you opponent doesn't then . . . . well the nightmare of all LDers, your parent, lay judge (ME) will. I don't think you want that. But, for those who read this paradigm, you would not be surprised to find that I am deeply influenced by the value analysis of Aristotle and Adam Smith sooooooooo if you have not read Nicomachean Ethic and/or The Theory of Moral Sentiments you will want to clarify you value as these are the defaults I will use if you don't clearly, slowly and simply explicate yours.
2. I am skeptical of Rawls based upon my reading of A Theory of Justice. But, by sharing this prior with you I want you to know as a student I am very interested in learning. So, if based upon your reading of Rawls you provide a rationale for my acceptance, you have it. Of course, the prereq for success here might well be your actual reading of Rawls, although the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes a start on introducing this theory to the lay reader.
3. I am very skeptical of Utilitarianism and its various expressions, particularly the rote and familiar rationale that is read on the top of cases that use it. I am very easily persuaded to reject based upon the comparison of impact on the minority.
4. I reject all extinction impacts
5. I reject all progressive debate
6. I reject kritik
7. If you are compelled to provide a counter plan or alternative as NEG, you need to provide clarity as to the link to the resolution and to utilize analysis and material that the AFF would be expected to aware of. (I understand the grammar policy have now OKed ending a sentence with a preposition.
8. CX is important for the ethos of the debaters, clarification, and laying the ground for rebuttal.
9. In round tone - I appreciate all debaters, particularly those who are having fun, display good humor and take a collaborative rather than adversarial approach. I know you are all very serious about this activity (which I appreciate) and you need to be yourself. That said, when considering your approach, particularly in CX you might try a thought experiment or fantasy - you are arguing before the Supreme Court. What tone and approach would you take if you were trying to engage either Elena Kagan or Neil Gorsuch, remember of course that your grandparents, Joe, Morgan and I are also up there on the bench.

Congress

1. Congressional debater - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Tarasui esque or Clark esque. So, PO, I praise those who PO and condemn elite debaters who don't.
2. I commend to you Aristotle - On Rhetoric - specifically his treatment of ethos"the way we become responsible citizens who can understand each other and share ideas is through rhetoric"
3. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

4. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:

   https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/Witt_An_Act_of_Congress_PO.pdf

   http://www.bobcatdebate.com/uploads/5/5/6/6/55667975/presiding_officer_guide.pdf

5. Members of our community who have taught me a great deal:

Yibo Chen

Frederick Changho (I take the approach Truth >Tech)

Zoe Soderquist

Christopher Klugman

Non debaters

IE - I tend to be much more impressed by the performance that reaches deep within to find some sort of reality or authenticity and I tend to be less impressed by the well developed techniques that excellent actors employ.

Extemp - I value analysis within the context of a cohesive narrative over quantity of evidence cited.

Orators - your call to action need be substantial, significant, clearly defined and either achievable, or contextualized in such a manner that the attempt has significant value.

And don't worry, my previous paradigm, saved for posterity due to the scope of Google - here

*Taking this approach, Aristotle proposes that the highest good for humans iseudaimonia, a Greek word often translated as "flourishing" or sometimes "happiness". Aristotle argues that eudaimoniais a way of taking action (energeia) that is appropriate to the human "soul" (psuchē) at its most "excellent" orvirtuous (aretē). Eudaimoniais the most "complete" aim that people can have, because they choose it for its own sake. An excellent human is one who is good at living life, who does so well and beautifully (kalos). Aristotle says such a person would also be a serious (spoudaios) human being. He also asserts that virtue for a human must involvereason in thought and speech (logos), as this is a task (ergon) of human living.

I have coached novice policy and varisty PF and LD. I expect debates to follow standards of the communication model. If I can't understand what is being said, there is breakdown of that communication. I will judge accordingly. I like clean solid debates with solid evidence cited appropriately, clash of evidence and ideas, and thoughtful analysis and explanations of key voting issues. Debaters should hold themselves to the highest standard of demeanor and decorum.

Generally, I will make decisions based on who presents a full and complete argument supported with evidence, not conclusions drawn upon conjecture and assumption, and one who is more comprehensive in delivery.

I look for the debater that has a balance of offense/defense and shows me that they have not only a comprehensive understanding of the resolution but also gives me, as the judge, a comprehensive understanding of your case.

I do not support a theory or disclosure theory debate. The resolution has been given to you. Debate it.

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

I have coached and judged for over 20 years. I am willing to judge just about any event.

In debate I always wait until after the last speech to make a decision. Each speech is important and I like to hear the overall picture....the ideas...the research....how your ideas clash.

I don't have a checklist of arguments I like to see (or don't like to see) I prefer for debaters to set their own stage. I like it when debaters run advanced arguments, but in a way that supports civil discourse. Be nice to each other in round, professionalism is just as important as a well researched and presented argument.

I flow carefully, and I look for who has command of the round in terms of content, organization, and delivery. I love when you give me a clear reason for decision in your closing speech, and I tend to be swayed by weighing arguments. Debate is a public speaking activity, so I will pay attention to presentation.

I like to see the flow of the arguments, particularly your Value and Value Criterion throughout the debate.

I am of the position that it is your debate, and you should do with it what you want. I do not automatically reject arguments based on the type of argument. There are a couple of things that are important to me as a critic that you should know...

DON'T use speed to exclude your opponent. No one (including me) should have to ask you to slow or clear multiple times. In general, I'm not a fan of speeches that spread the entire time. Just talk to me and make arguments... it's better for both of us.

DON'T be rude.

DON'T assume that I will fill in holes for you. It is your job to give me complete arguments with reasons why they win the round.

DO provide impacts and weigh them.

DO be clear on how you would like me to evaluate the round.

DO give me proven abuse on T. I like T, but not if it is incomplete.

DO affirm the topic in ***some*** way. If you are rejecting, I need you to be EXTREMELY clear on why that is fair to your opponent (it probably isn't, especially in LD). There are many ways to affirm, and I am interested in all ways.

All Events:

-On the clock roadmaps

-Speak at a speed/rate that the judge and audience can understand

LD Debate:

-Value/Value Clash is Prioritized

-Use of analytical and empirical evidence

LD - Prefer classic value clash debate, but only if it is meaningful. Clear case construction with logical links are important. Coverage of debate flow and respectful approach important to me. Evidence is fine, but I like philosophical debate in LD too. Please treat each other with respect.

CX - Stock Issues are important in my judging. I don't especially like spreading, but don't mind quick reading (as long as I can understand it). Prefer transparent and respectful debate. LINKS LINKS LINKS. Fine with K's, as long as they link and make sense. Impact calculus done well often sways my vote.

PF - Prefer winsome and clear debate. Respectful questioning approach appreciated. Evidence links are important. Dropping arguments is fine as long as you stay within a meaningful framework.

I've judged many debates over 10 years + of coaching, but am still learning more and more about debate all the time.