I have been a coach for one year and have judged all forms of debate. I would consider myself still a lay judge. I tend to be a slower processor, so spreading will not impress me. If you chose to do that, I definitely need an email of your case so I can follow along (alyssaalbee@cusd.com). Emotional arguments are good, but I will always choose statistical evidence over that. You won't win me over by telling me one sad story. I look forward to judging for you!

Background

I've debated Lincoln Douglas for two years, with success varying from winning lay tournaments to breaking at bid level tournaments. As a junior and senior I debated in Policy breaking at multiple bid level tournaments. My focus in policy was on critical philosophy, particularly concerning ableism and the prison industrial complex. I am currently a student at the University of California Berkeley where I major in history and legal studies.

Policy Paradigm

1. On Spreading and Slow Rounds. It's been a minute since I've competed, and thus my ear for spreading is not as great as it once was. Please be clear when listing tagline and citations, and demarcate clearly where one argument ends and another begins. I will say "clear" or "slow" if I feel you are just not clear enough. That said spreading isn't bad, it's not overly difficult to listen to, it just needs to be annunciated to the best of your degree.

If one team requests a slow round, that request will be granted. I spread and competed at the high school level but I firmly believe debate should be accessible, especially for people with disabilities and the best debaters can win spreading or not.

2. On Ks. I really like critiques, when I debated most of my focus was on identity critiques (critical disability studies mostly, but have experience with Wilderson, fem, cap). My threshold for Ks like Baudrillard is incredibly high, meaning that if your K relies on highly complex ideas and terminology to which I'm not familiar with, it must be near perfect to receive my ballot. Don't assume I know your literature, please specify, especially when your cards use terms specific to their philosophy or use particular terms of art.

On Policy. While I love Ks, I'm familiar with straight policy analysis. Please impact frame as early as possible in the debate, and make sure you do all the work in 2NRs, 2ARs, don't force me to intervene.

TRUTH OVER TECH.

Speaker points - Signpost well (this is also crucial for your ballot, if I miss a point because you are jumping all over the page thats on you). Condescending Behavior or rude cross examinations will result in severe point loss. Just be nice.

Prep - starts when the flash drive is in the computer, time yourselves. Don't be a dick, and if the times are different by a few seconds it ultimately doesn't matter.

HI. I am a high school English teacher and a Speech and Debate Coach/Teacher.

I have equal experience in PF, LD, and Parli debates. Below are some general points regarding my judging philosophy (general for all debates)

I put equal value on delivery/performance as I do on case content/structure (win on delivery + win on flow).

Evidence RQ: If you need your opponent to show you a piece of evidence by all means ask for it, but don’t be abusive. Ask for what you really need and ask for it all at once. Make sure you can send evidence in 1 minute if you are asked for it. I don’t need to be on the chain/email.

Speed is fine with me but I generally hate spreading. I can hear you and follow but if the information is important enough to say, it’s important enough to get on my flow, and I just can’t flow that fast nor should I have to. Why is my flow important? (“If I must answer that, I will leave and I will not come back again!”). In general: this is a debate not a contest to see who can get the most words in. Spread at your own risk.

Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and evidence. No K’s attacking the “safety of debate”: won’t buy it. If you feel the opponent is abusive or using trigger words, that shouldn’t be the “case” - that is something you stop debate for and tell the judge, your coach, tournament staff, etc.

Flowing/note-taking: I flow on paper or in a spreadsheet depending on where I am. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches. I may, however, update or add points if needed on my flow. Note that if you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.

Cross: I value high quality arguments and courtesy. There's nothing wrong with being aggressive but it's possible to be aggressive and polite at the same time. (In other words - don’t ask a question then speak over the opponent when they try to answer it. Don’t abuse the use of follow up questions...etc).

Weighing and voter issues: If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will choose based on the flow. I prefer you set the framework up and weigh on it telling me specifically wheat you want me to focus on. I see often that new or intermediate debaters forget to clash. Don't just tell me why your case wins!

Off time roadmaps: On time, off time, don't care, but yes, do provide a roadmap. Be brief and please signpost during your speech.

FINAL NOTE: Remember that just because we are online doesn’t mean everything has to change. I prefer cam on and good eye contact. Have fun and be polite to each other! Have a great debate!

No spreading

Debate: I judge based on clash (in their speeches, not necessarily cross-x).

Stockdale High School '20

UCSB rn

Currently do parli in college. I did policy debate on the national circuit in high school, but am familiar with pretty much all forms of debates. I know prefs are annoying so this will be short.

All debates

Any argument you want to read works. Impact weighing is an absolute must.

Policy

I know a lot people automatically are looking for how judges feel about the k. In terms of where I land on the spectrum of policy to kritikal arguments, I probably more comfortable with policy arguments but this does NOT mean I hate the k. I will vote for anything that is well explained, but a lot of times teams will rely on the judge being very familiar with their scholarship in order to get away with their tricks and skip explanations; if you do this you will lose. If at the end of the debate I'm not scratching my head about what the advocacy/alternative does and what your thesis is because you explained it well, you'll be in good shape.

Disad stories should be well explained. Don't just read a zillion 1 sentence cards; actually answer the specific warrants of the link and uniqueness claims of both sides. It's possible for there to be zero risk for something.

The counterplans can be either textually or functionally competitive. If you're reading more than 4 conditional positions I'd probably think that's abusive; but if you win condo good than hey, condo's good.

T is incredibly strategic, more teams should go for it. That being said, if the t debate just is a bunch of the classic one liner arguments being thrown by both sides, then it is incredibly difficult to evaluate. Also, in framework debates, aff should be sure to answer the 1nc warrants thoroughly and not just put 15 disads on the flow.

Impact turn debates are always a good time.

Final word: I personally can't stand excessively long overviews. Its become a trend to hide a bunch of offense in there and then go onto the line by line and answer stuff with "that was in the overview." Do your explanation and whatever you else you feel you need to do at the top, but please do the line by line on the line by line.

I start at 29.0 and work my way up. If you slip in a sports joke I'll boost you an extra 0.05. I'll tank you if you say something hella problematic.

Speech and debate judging paradigm criteria (link to google doc)

My name is Michael Lynch. I am an English teacher. I did four years of forensics in high school. I have experience in Lincoln Douglas, impromptu, national/international extemporaneous, congress, and parliamentary debate. I went to state twice in speech/debate and once to nationals in congress. For five years, I was an assistant coach for the Kern Regional Forensics League. I started a debate team at Arvin High School in 2022.

THIS IS MY NUMBER ONE RULE IN FORENSICS: Treat your opponent as you want to be treated. If you don’t want your opponent to go over time, don’t do it yourself. If you want your opponent to play fair and not fabricate evidence, do the same. Treat your opponents with dignity and respect. You are expected to be professional; go out of your way to be ethical. Never roll your eyes, lose your composure, or resort to insults.

I hate the following things: spreading, speaking so fast you sound like an auctioneer, improper English, critiques, and off topic arguments. I expect debates to be about the resolution at hand. Do not come up with an irreverent point such as “Before we can debate, we need to declare the official language of Saturn to be Swedish.” Please do not go over time.

I prefer a few strong, well-developed arguments rather than ten weak attacks. I evaluate rounds equally on content and delivery. I care about eye contact, clarity, voice inflections, body language, and persuasiveness.

I have heard the following sentence hundreds of times: "As a 'brief' off time roadmap. I will address the arguments that my opponent made and then I will strengthen my own." This is not necessary.

A special note for impromptu speakers: please make sure your speech is about the topic. I am fine with stock examples as long as it actually works with your topic. I despise the canned “book—person—movie” formula. It is obvious if your “impromptu” speech is always “To Kill a Mockingbird, Steve Jobs, and Finding Nemo.”

I'm open to changing my mind on anything here, except for the things indicated with ????. My advice is ALWAYS: Debate with your best strategy despite my judging preferences. I have no problem giving out low point wins, but if you want a win AND higher points, check out below. However, if you completely ignore my LIMITED gripes about debate listed below, it would almost take a verbal forfeit from the opponent for me to vote for you.

HunterRadfordDebate@gmail.com

Traditional LD:
-I judge off of the flow only, unless directed otherwise. Your speaker points are 100% correlated to the arguments you make, not how you say them. Speaking style means almost nothing to me.
-I am very very framework heavy. You will have an uphill battle if you read 20 seconds of framework and 5:40 of case in the 1AC. Rawls is my favorite LD philosopher. Justice debates are my favorite topic of nuance.
-Clear signposting is obviously a key to higher speaker points. Do the work for me when it comes to explaining your access to your impacts/ why your opponent doesn't have access to theirs. I will almost certainly not flow line-by-line debate in the last minute of the 1NR/the entirety of the 2AR.
Flow debate:

Truth>tech

I enjoy hearing stock Affs. I have been out of the scene for so long that I guarantee you: I don't know whats popular. I don't know what your author believes in. I don't know how your author answers other authors. So running a K aff is not an auto loss, but there better be good reason for it and defendable in the round why we should be talking about it. As long as the K on neg operates as a DA to case, go for it. I still dont know who your author is though.

-I did college debate but I'm still not the fastest flower. If you know you are one of the fastest speakers at the tournament, please go like 80% speed. (I have now been out of debate for about 5 years. I have the experience but not the ear for high speed anymore.)
-????My threshold for theory is pretty low. I liked going for theory in a lot of rounds. With that in mind, I will reject the arg (but might as well reject the team since you undercover case) if you go for theory and case in the last rebuttal. This indicates you only halfway support your theory being a voter.
-????I don't think an RVI is a thing. I won't vote for one.
-Extend offense as much as possible (of course). You probably won't like my RFD if you go into the last speech with defense.
-I think the AFF always has the ability to extend from case, even if that means extending something from the 1AC in the 2AR. I'm open to changing my mind if the neg wishes.

-I typically enjoy a nuanced debate between the 1AC and 1-3 off-case positions. The more off-case you decide to read, the less interested I'll be.

-After being out of debate for a while, many things have turned me off about it. (while keeping in mind my advice to stick with your best strategy if you must),
1. Try your best to sell me any impact that isn't human lives unless it is a genuine argument backed by actual evidence, i.e global warming causes extinction.
2.???? As a coach from a small school, I think the "debate is a game" argument is awful. I don't hold my students afterschool for 2 hours a day to talk about Baudrillard or tell them to run whatever is most fun for them when debating other teams that seemingly have no chance on paper. Please refrain from turning debate into a joke. If debate is a game for you and you enjoy crazy arguments, more power to you. I would ask that you strike me.

I did not debate in either high school or college, but began judging when my daughter started high school. I don't have a preference for any particular event, and enjoy judging both debate and IE.

Re: IE - I love almost all of the events (except DI, but I'll judge it if they need me to), and I know what good interpretation looks like. If you're doing Impromptu, be aware that I'll give the higher rankings to kids who literally improvise their speeches to match the topic, and give the bottom rankings to kids who improv their intros and then pull out their same three examples no matter what the topic is, even if the improv isn't as smooth as the rehearsed one.

I love clash in a debate, and value logic and argumentation. I flow rounds, but I am not one of those judges who is all in my own head thinking about what I would say if I were in your shoes. You should convince me that (a) your arguments are stronger and (b) that your opponents dropped parts of your case. Link chains should be well-explained; they're called "link" for a reason.

I've learned to really appreciate topicality debates, but I also like other types of debate as well.

I'm a native New Yorker, born and bred. I think fast, I write fast, and I talk fast. However, let me remind you that I am a lay judge. If you are spreading, I am more likely to offer you an asthma inhaler than to decide that you have won the round.

Finally, I can't stand when people say something like, "I/we can't debate this! This is UNFAIR to our side!" Yes. Yes, you can. You are a debater. Make it so.

Stockdale High School 20'

Georgetown 24'

Pronouns: she/her

Email (please add me to the chain): scullystockdalehs@gmail.com

General:

I debated for four years at a fairly small school and that's influenced a lot of my perspectives in debate. Some of the people that have inspired me/affected how I see debate are Bill Batterman, Maggie Berthiaume, Jerry Wang, Jared Burke, Natalie Knez, and others.

Please be kind to each other, avoid any "-isms," don't shout in cross, etc. You should know these things as a good human being. My goal is always to have a wholesome debate, don't do anything that harms that.

Card quality is really important, as someone who had to cut nearly all of their own cards in high school. I'll follow on the speech doc, but point out evidence inconsistencies and then say why they matter. If one team reads 3 bad cards and you have one fire card, talk about why your singularly better card should be the one I prefer.

As a general rule, I far prefer if arguments are true than if they are not. That said, if someone drops an argument, that is still strategically super important. But don't read some crazy stuff and then expect me to give it 100% risk.

Please do not read "death good" in front of me.

K Affs:

Do it! My experience in high school was largely on the other side of these debates, but I love complex and fascinating 2ARs on K affs. The more (topic) specific the affirmative the better tailored it will be to flexible negative strategies. Make sure your advocacy is clear and has a tangible explanation through all the speeches; 2AC flex cannot change the advocacy from 1AC CX.

Don't assume I'll know 100% of the jargon at 350 wpm, so slow down your overviews and in the 2AR frame my ballot and how framework/t/negative arguments impact out versus your affirmative.

Against framework, do your thing. I will say, my experience in these debates is largely as a 2N, but that's only increased my respect for a fantastic 2AR that can obliterate framework. If you can, create more offense on the framing page.

If you read Baudrillard, my brother reads it and has spent 2 years trying to explain it to me. I will need more help in these rounds. He did not do enough.

Try to tailor your overviews to each round. Maggie Berthiaume used to call certain overviews, "like reading off a teleprompter," and I'm inclined to agree. Try to put what you can on the line-by-line. It's very hard to cross-apply things when they've been mashed into 1 1/2 minutes of overview.

Policy Affs:

Yes?

If you read a bigger stick aff, please make sure your internal link cards a) say what you claim they say, and b) actually are in the 1AC. The more specific the internal link chain and impact, the better.

If you read a framing contention, make sure the cards are either necessary to the 2AR's ballot framing or specific to the negative team's strategy. Generic "no great power wars ever" cards have limited use.

I loved going for presumption ballots in high school. If the affirmative doesn't do anything and there's not a CP, if the affirmative doesn't do anything then the maintenance of the status quo is the least disruptive.

Unless your circumvention cards are predictive, don't. Trump doesn't like most affirmatives, so the burden of proof for this argument is incredibly high to me in order to balance out the slew of affirmatives that would theoretically lose to this.

Ks:

Do it! My junior year of high school my partner and I were primarily settler colonialism debaters on the negative, and although that was my only year as a one-off team, since then I've either debated or ran most other Ks. I am not very familiar with Baudrillard, so if that's your cup of tea, have some amazing explanation of the world of the alt and what it is. Jared Burke was my high school coach, so I'm fairly flexible on how Ks will interact with overall strategy.

The 2NC/1NR should always talk about the affirmative, or even better rehighlight 1AC cards to clearly explain the link.

T:

I love! If this is a serious strategy in the round, develop your 1NC shell a little more than "voter for fairness and education, next." Treat T like a DA in the final speeches and I'll be over the moon.

DAs:

Please focus on the internal links and the impact. A lot of DAs nowadays don't have a clear scenario in the 1NC which, as a 2N, has never made sense to me. The clearer the ballot/scenario for the DA, the easier it is to make an excellent 2NR that has DA outweighs/turns case arguments that become far more persuasive, especially with more and more affirmatives vying for an easier link chain as a ballot.

For politics disadvantages: I agree with Parker Coon, "I really need a stalemate associate to resolve this one for me. On one hand, I think the Politics DA is super valuable because it teaches us about current events and a lot about how the political system functions both theoretically and actually. On the other hand, I think a lot of Politics DAs have boiled down to "plan unpopular, makes people mad, something does/doesn't happen, vote neg" without a clear story as to what's going on. I generally detest the strategy of the neg block reading a slew of cards to answer the 2ACs arguments, but that seems to be the norm with the Politics DA. You'll do much better in front of me if you point to the nuances of what your card is saying, and develop a scenario that I can assign risk to. A lot of this can be applied to other arguments as well." If you read a politics DA with a horrible internal link that says "a new policy causes debates in other areas," and then read an impact card, I will be sad and very not likely to vote for it.

CPs:

A favorite strategy of mine, I have a very high threshold for counterplan shenanigans, but that doesn't mean theory isn't a nonstarter. Just put the effort into the theory argument that you want me to see on the ballot; if you're going for condo, it better be the only thing in the 2AR. I also don't condone conditional planks of counterplans (just make them separate CPs if you think you're going to kick one) or add-on planks unless the 2AC adds an add-on.

I'm a sucker for counterplans that are very specific to the affirmative. I think it makes theory arguments especially weak and gives amazing offense for PICs or a specific external/ internal net benefit.

Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.

I enjoy a good debate with a lot of clashing. Debates over definitions are fine but rarely have meaningful impact on the round. Evidence will only be considered if the debator makes an explicit link/impact to the case. Weaker evidence with an explicit impact will trump stronger evidence with no (or only implied) impact.

At the end of the day, I am here to judge you on your abilities to debate and not someone else's. Please keep that in mind. I look forward to a good round.

Former Debater. My main events were Lincoln-Douglas, Parli, and Congress. However, It's been a number of years since I debated competitively, so I broadly consider myself a lay judge. Debate accordingly.

Debate should be about communication. Speak and articulate your arguments clearly. Avoid jargon.

Feel free to be assertive, but be respectful above all else. Ad hominem attacks will reflect poorly on your performance.

Substance trumps speed. I rather you argue a limited number of strong, well-developed points, then word-vomit a billion weak contentions. If I don’t understand what you are saying, I will not vote on what you are saying. Don't spread, I will dock your speaker points as much as I am allowed to.

Linkage is of paramount importance. If I cannot follow the logic behind your arguments, you have not done your job. Do not assume I will come to the same conclusions, if you do not guide me there through your argumentation.

Extend everything that matters. Prioritize what is being debated. If a point goes undressed by both teams, I will consider it null, and I will not vote on it. Any points not discussed before Rebuttals will be considered new arguments. If a point has consistently been addressed by either team, it is fair game in Rebuttals.

Cross-X:

• If you are asking questions, ASK QUESTIONS. Cross-x is not your rebuttal. By all means, ask pointed questions. Demonstrate that your opponent does not know what they are talking about, but do not grandstand.
• If you are being cross-examined, allow your opponent to ask questions. They can interrupt you, it is their cross-x. Feel free to answer/dodge questions however long you like, but when they ask questions, you will allow them to do so.

LD:

• Framework is everything. Impacts are important, as are Case arguments, but ultimately my vote will prioritize framework.
• Affirmative must win under their own framework first and foremost. Winning under the Negative framework is encouraged, but priority for the Affirmative is the Affirmative framework.
• Negative either proves Affirmative framework is bad/flawed, or that Affirmative does not win under the Affirmative framework.
• If Affirmative framework is bad/flawed, Negative must provide a counter framework, or otherwise produce a line of reasoning to justify a Negative vote.
• Analysis/Logic > Evidence Cards (unless evidence DIRECTLY showcases a flaw in reasoning, or otherwise contradicts your opponent’s statements)
• Link everything back to framework. You can have the strongest contention ever written in the entirety of human history on this planet, but if it has nothing to do with your framework I will consider it a null argument.
• LD is LD, it is not one-person Policy. Read a Policy-style case, and I will automatically dock you on speaker points. If you prefer this style of debate: find a partner. and do Policy.
• Furthermore, LD is philosophy debate. It is about ideas first and foremost.You need to take complex theories, and apply them to the resolution in a concise, rational argument. In short, your job is to explain Kantian ethics to a fifth grader, and get him/her/them to understand why Kantian ethics are better than Utilitarianism when deciding what to eat for breakfast (and vice versa).

Kritiks (and other BS):

• Don’t. You will be fighting an uphill battle.
• If you do, you are going to need to work twice as hard to prove to me that: (1) you understand the arguments you are making, (2) that you can explain those arguments in a way for me to understand, and (3) that those arguments have rational, reasonable conclusions that are relevant to the debate space.
• I will vote a mediocre Topicality argument far before I vote an ok Kritik

Parli:

• Keep the debate concise and well-organized.
• Give me a consistent weighing mechanism.
• Don't bring up POA unless absolutely necessary.
• Ex) Ad Hominem, Major Rule Violations
• New arguments should only receive a POA if it is grossly clear that the material has gone untouched during the entirety of the debate. If this is not the case, calling a POA is a waste of time. I'm not going to take time away from the debate to play who-said-what-and-when

• Policy: Keep it simple. Affirmative needs a plan. Negative can provide a CP, but should be chiefly concerned with proving the disadvantages of the Affirmative. I'm not going to be nitpick-y about the specifics, unless those specifics are brought up in the round.
• Value: Follow LD guidelines, but know that I am substantially more lenient given you only have half an hour to prepare.
• Fact: Provide a weighing mechanism. Give me a line of reasoning to vote for you.

I competed in both Lincoln Douglas and policy debate, and had some success in Lincoln Douglas at the circuit level. It has been a awhile since I’ve been in a fast round so although I’m comfortable with some speed, I would not go your fastest with me. I’m okay with whatever arguments you want to run, but do tend to like a traditional Lincoln Douglas debate.

Have fun!