Rewrite 11/5/2020

Please include me in the email chain in policy debates: Alecbellis8@gmail.com.

Experience:

4 years college policy, 2 of those years with national circuit competition. Graduated in spring of 2020.
Read whatever you want and I'll evaluate it. I'm more interested in K's, but I do a lot of policy research for JMU still. I'm up to date on the 2020-2021 Policy topic. Liberty will be my first time judging this year. I've judged before, but not varsity.

Speed

I consider myself a good flow, but top speed (among very fast teams) is probably going to be too much for me. My hearing got fucked up this summer and I'm not sure how that's going to translate to online debates. I will do my best to communicate with you during the debate. I will say clear and slow.

Truth v Tech

Man this is so hard. A conceded argument doesn't make it true, but it does make it truer. A highly true argument still needs to be applied. My goal is to do as little work as possible for you.

Policy vs Policy

*A lot of your affs are blatantly miscut and/or double turns. Don't make me have to drop you for an ethics challenge.

If you want to read 8 off, fine. I don't think that's a good strategy because case debate is cool and more educational but you do you.

Condo is fine but I'll vote on theory if it's good.

More likely to vote on conceded args in these debates than any other.

These debates are boring, so please try to make them less so.

DAs -- I am probably more likely than an average judge to evaluate well warranted analytic arguments. this doesn't mean that you don't have to read carded impact defense, but it does mean that if you point out logical contradictions in their evidence, use historical examples you can get far efficiently. Uniqueness matters, but it is difficult to assess in absolute terms because there are many warrants for why, say, the economy is high low now. If your uniqueness ev kicks ass and you're up on it by a mile then the DA probably doesn't matter, but the direction of the link is more important in debates where uq is contested.

CPs -- Tricky/smart CPs can/should be the fulcrum of a policy based negative strategy. Again, don't change your wheelhouse for me. Textual and functional competition is important. Fake CPs like the states counterplan or ESR are uphill battles and I like theory against them.

T -- underused against policy affs.

Policy AFFs vs K NEGs

I debated 2 ish years of policy arguments, so feel free to run them. I will evaluate them and I still do topic research for JMU, so I'm pretty versed in that side of the 20-21 topic. That being said, my ideological leanings are heavily in favor of the K.

AFF -- I will do my best to be impartial, but I have a big problem with the way that policy affs try to make framework arguments. Arguments about plan focus are nonsensical. If the K doesn't have specific links to the aff, you will probably win -- that isn't a question of framework. Fairness arguments don't make sense because you read your aff and you still get to defend it. They aren't mooting the aff by disagreeing with your scholarhsip. Your framework should be about what education you produce and what my role in the debate is. Am I a policymaker? Ethical decisionmaker? What does that mean for how I approach impacts?

NEG -- You need to outweigh the affirmative's impacts. You can filter them out through a framework that limits what I evaluate, you can have a reject alt, an alt that legitimately solves portions of the aff, etc. Be flexible. I don't have a problem with kicking the alt -- I did that all the time. But you have to preface what that means in the debate. Ie: what does your link and impact mean in the world of the alt/without it?

If you have a reason to distrust their scholarship writ large, that should be articulated in terms of what it means for me as a decisionmaker. Pulling lines from evidence and explaining why their scholarship doesn't match their explanation of the evidence is very persuasive. Let's be real, most policy evidence is imperialist schlock.

Your biggest challenge is probably going to be defeating the util o/w + perm route.

Policy NEGs vs K AFFs

Cruel optimism vs "you're too pessimistic" debates are very tired and largely irresolvable. Both require winning a theory of power.

AFF -- I like topical K's with plan texts and nontopical affs as well. I prefer if the aff is relevant to the topic, but it doesn't have to affirm the topic. I think you are benefitted by clear counterinterpretations rather than tricky we meet arguments. Engaging the state bad is kind of a generic, I would prefer offense about how those debates produce violence for you and why they enshrine bad forms of education. IE: why your starting point is significantly better than the TVA/their model of education.

NEG -- Framework is the easiest argument in debate. You get to read a ~1 minute or less shell and give a 9 minute 2nc. I did this, so I'm not biased against it. That being said, FW offense should be about how the affirmative creates a bad standard for debates, why it hurts their education, why it hurts broader approaches to critical education. Topical versions of the aff and a detailed explanation of both a caselist in your world of debate and what arguments you lose are important. I don't care if you lost your generic CP and DA because if that's all you needed for a policy team then it's probably on you for not spending more time prepping K teams. You need to be able to articulate what engaging strategies you lost.

If your cap K link is that they didn't engage the state hard enough, what distinguishes this from FW? It's not that you can't make cap args, or this style of K. I did this stuff as well, but you should be heavily in the aff's literature base with your examples in links.

K vs K

Both sides will be benefitted by making distinctions between strategy and tactics when necessary.

My opinion has shifted on critical debate somewhat since I graduated. I think I am significantly better versed in antiblackness literature and more sympathetic to it than before. I was a cap debater -- now am less sympathetic to that K being mutually exclusive with antiblackness after reading more Wilderson. I think I was already pretty well versed in settler colonial and indigenous literature, and very well versed in security and cap literature.

Alts in KvK debates are often very squishy, so I think kicking the alt or just reject alts are a better bet for me. The permutation is just so often a devastator here. Something unexplored is what Baylor did last year by framing their alt as diagnostic analysis of the aff. In that world, links are more difficult for the aff to solve.

I am very open to presumption against these affs.

I'll do my best to judge you on whichever type of debate you and your opponent want to have. Former policy/LD debater.

When I was a "youth", back in the 1920s, progressive LD was not prominent outside of competitive national tournaments. Although I did policy for a year in college and for a couple years in HS I am unfamiliar with the framework/T arguments that (I imagine) have developed to accommodate the changes to LD. I'm mentioning this because I will be a better judge if you are very, very clear and very, very slow when making those arguments. I have never encountered them before!

I have not done debate for several years, the faster you go, the less I'll pick-up. I'll tell you if you are going too fast the first time and then I will stop flowing. Similarly, please be clear about which argument you are addressing.

The more framework/clarity you can give about my role and the role of the ballot, the better. Happy to vote on framework or T.

Please don't be disrespectful to your opponent or to other debaters. Nobody likes to be bullied, nobody likes a bully.

1. I ask that your argument be specifically related to the resolution for me to consider it as a strong case. If your points, contentions, etc., could equally be applied to a hundred other resolutions, I will generally consider you to be running a generic argument and to not have done any specific research on the resolution at hand. Of course, you are welcome to run such general contentions; I am just less likely to see them as strong points if they're not specific to the resolution.

2. Likewise, you are welcome to speak too fast and get out of breath if you feel it will help you make your case. However, I don't have your notes and it's neither my job nor your opponent's job to decipher what you are saying. So, if I or your opponent can't make out what you're saying due to speed, that's on you. If you can combine speed and clarity, I'm fine, but I have found that combination is generally rare.

3. In LD, I would prefer to see contentions clearly tied back to values etc. as much as possible.

In short: keep contentions specific to the resolution at hand as much as possible, make clear the relation of contentions to values, and speak clearly.

Let's start with my background as a debater.

I competed for 3 years in high school for the Bellingham United Debate Team, two in Public Forum, and one in Policy/CX. I consider myself a Public Forum debater at heart, as I achieved my best results (4th place in state), during my time there. It's been a while (about 3 years) since I last interacted with debate.

As far as how I view rounds, I try to enter each round with few preconceived notions on how a round should go. As such, I consider myself K-friendly and am open to discussion on the nature of debate during the round.

Your rebuttal speeches are the most important, and all of the arguments you want me to consider must make it through to your final speech or I will not consider them. This is imperative. That's not to say I won't flow your constructives, but I should be able to make my decision by assessing what was kept alive in the flow.

Finally let's go over some quick nit-picky details.

- I will keep time but I ask that you time yourselves as well.

- I do not like flex prep. Cross-X and prep time are oil and water.

- I'm fine with speed but try to slow down for your tags. I am 20 years old going on 60.

- I'll drop any explicitly hateful arguments, and the debaters who make them.

- PLEASE give an off-time roadmap. I won't ding you for the lack of one but I appreciate them immensely.

- Speaker points are racist/sexist/queerphobic so they will be the same for everyone.

Debate is supposed to be fun, (emphasis on supposed to be) so please have fun and good luck!

I am a parent judge. I have three years of experience in judging LD and this is my first year judging speech rounds as well. Either you will love or hate me depending on if I vote for you or not.

For LD-

I understand how plans/counterplans work but I would prefer rounds with less/no theory (K's especially).

Just because I am not a big fan of theory that does not mean I do not want you to stand up to your opponent if they are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I vote down to that kind of stuff.

Please do not spread!!!! Not only is it extremely hard to flow and understand but technical difficulties in an online debate setting make it much worse. You are welcome to speak fast though.

If you mention cheez-its - I will increase your speaker points as much I am allowed in Tabroom.

Overall- just have fun!

First the easy stuff: I was a four-year, state- and national-qualifying competitor in multiple events in high school; an assistant coach for several years after that; and have judged off and on for another decade on top of that. So, don't be afraid to use whatever tactics/speed/style you wish; I promise you won't fly over my head.

That experience has given me enough time debate-adjacent to see it evolve in multiple ways; it is and should be an evolving activity/game/event/art-form/whatever. In service to that view, I will be doing my absolute best to let the round speak for itself. I will do my best not to come into the round with preconceived notions of what debate ought to be -- and 'what debate ought to be' will always be an issue up for debate within the round itself. What I really want is clash in the debate -- what the sides seem to mutually agree is important, I'll take as important.

The above is barely helpful though, isn't it? It kind of sounds like I'm protesting that I have no biases, which is not really true for anyone, let alone me. So here's a list of things I like a lot and things I like less:

Things I like a lot:

Well-expanded topicality arguments with a lot of ink on the standards flow

Nitty politics impacts

LD rounds with a lot of philosophy wonk talk

Incisive but respectful cross-examination

Small, realistic impact stories

Analysis of impacts at the ethical level

Things I don't like as much:

When topicality standards boil down to just "but how are we supposed to winnnnnnnnn?" I should have reasons to prefer your interpretation other than to throw you a bone.

A bunch of useless definitions at the top of an LD case. This is just an annoying vestige of a much older form of debate.

Discourse impacts asserting that my ballot itself changes the world somehow - I know this is popular now but I've always had trouble with this particular suspension of disbelief.

Expansive Neg fiat - I come in assuming that all neg positions are, fundamentally, disadvantages: i.e. the Link is that if we do Plan, we can't do Counterplan. If counterplan has zero chance of happening in the real world, the DA at it's heart is non-unique. Negs should take a grounded advocacy or they are, to me, vulnerable to attacks on their fiat power.

gEt OfF tHe RoCk

When teams collectively decide to just refer to "The McGilligan Card" or whatever the case may be over and over again without periodically reminding me where to find the McGilligan card on my flow and what it says. I'm a bit hard of hearing and names are the one thing I have a hard time catching right off the bat, so refer to a card solely by author name at your peril.

Hopefully these examples are enough to give you a feel of the kinds of biases I might be subject to. I highly encourage you to ask any specific questions you may have before the round.

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

New judge.

Challenge

As a new judge I do not parse speed-reading ('spreading') well at all. Thank you for considering this: If I have a hard time following your carefully reasoned argument I will be unable to evaluate your ideas.

My disposition as a debate judge

Emotional appeal can be effective to a degree when it is backed by a solid thesis. Sustained emotional appeal, in contrast, is merely exhausting.

Unsupported contentions are also a red flag for me. I am most happy to hear a debater's framework explained slowly and clearly at the outset. As well: Repeating this framework later helps solidify my understanding.

I regard the latter parts of the debate as more central to the RFD. I particularly value connection between cross results and subsequent line of reasoning.

In a broad sense

I think of statements as positive and/or normative. Debate topics are normative, 'how things should be'. Towards making this case: Reason, observation and experiment are the sole successful means available to us for refining our collective understanding of how the universe operates. As a scientist I see this understanding in terms of degrees of certainty and uncertainty, not in terms of absolutes and blanket assertions.

As an example of such degrees I note that we reserve the word theory sensu stricto to mean a collection of mutually consistent ideas that enjoy a high degree of confidence. A theory can be overturned, but as a rule not easily. And a theory is not a guess, nor is it an article of faith. Evolution (biology) is both a fact and a theory and its validity is independent of my opinion of it.

Thank you for your attention.

I competed in PF, LD and Policy in high school, and have been judging sporadically for the last 19 years. I don't have any particular argument preference and am most looking for thorough warrants and clash through the round. Final speeches should include clear voting issues. Speed is fine. Please use tag lines instead of citations when extending arguments. This is my first time judging this school year, so please don't assume familiarity with the literature.

Pronouns: she/they

Background: policy debater 2012-2016 at Vashon Island High School, currently the coach for the VHS team.

Preferences: I don't have a ton of preferences in terms of types of arguments. As a judge, I try to come into rounds with sort of a blank slate. If you tell me that topicality is a voter and really explain your argument, then I will vote on it. If you tell me that the K is the most important thing in the round, then I'll vote on it. Tell me what matters. Tell me why it matters more than your opponents impacts/plans/alts. I don't like to 'step-in' and do interpretation outside of what has actually been said and what is actually on my flow. Please give me clear voters!

I like a good case debate. I would rather see 2-3 off and a decent case debate than 4-5 off with shallow case coverage. This applies to LD as well-- I would prefer that you give quality line-by-line on your opponents case than have a super long case of your own with little clash.

PLEASE name your off case in the 1nc. Don't just say "now onto the DA/K" please give him a name it makes everything so much clearer. This is just a pet peeve it won't effect your speaks but please give him a name.

I'm comfortable with and enjoy K affs, but you gotta have some sort of alternative (doesn't need to be a solvency claim persay but I want a call to action of sorts) and it has to be well explained. If you are going to be running more nuanced arguments, I am going to expect that you know what you are talking about. You can't just assert theory or read tags, you have to give me actual analysis. Performance affs are also fine.

Don't run an identity K if you are not part of that group (like don't run an anti-Blackness K if you're not Black). It feels like you're using the struggles of someone else to win a ballot which isn't okay.

I'm comfortable with speed, but please signpost when you're switching flows.

I like traditional and nontraditional LD debate styles so go with what is comfy for you!

If you do or say anything homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, xenophobic, ableist, classist, etc. you're going to lose speaker points and it might cost you the round depending on the severity. Just be kind to each other.

Please put K framework on a separate flow, it makes the debate more organized.

Make sure you're really articulating the link no matter what kind of argument you're running.

Feel free to ask for accommodations/ask specific questions before the round!

I am lay parent judge. I judged LD last year but still can't handle spreading or progressive arguments. I enjoy good speakers with well-articulated and constructed points. Please be nice when debating.

I am a traditional/flow LD judge. Progressive debate is fine (plans/counter-plans, K cases, framework) but must be solidly grounded in scholarly research that ties tightly to the resolution -- and must engage with the opponent (i.e. resolutional Ks tend to fail with me because that leaves no room for the opponent's case). Courtesy to your opponent matters. No spreading.

I have progressive software running on traditional hardware. I like progressive arguments such as Ks and narratives, but I cannot flow speed or blippy arguments because of my disability. Rhetoric is important, oratory is important, substance is what I vote on.

I prioritize clash over everything else, including procedurals and framework. I don't care how many arguments you make or how much evidence you provide if there is no clash in the round. I will only vote on uncontested offense if it is both extended and impacted in a later speech. Do not frontload the AC with an absurd amount of offense, see what your opponent misses in the NC, and then only extend uncovered offense. You will not win this way, I do not allow debaters to throw in everything and kick out of all but the easiest route to win.

I have Dysgraphia which affects physical writing and information processing. I cannot write quickly, even if I'm flowing digitally, and it takes me longer to process what I'm writing. That means if you choose to spread, or have a speech full of blippy arguments I will probably miss some things. If I miss an argument for this reason, it is not a voting issue. Do not grill me after the round as to why I did not vote for X or Y, and DO NOT try to figure out my threshold for speed. I understand that you're just trying to understand what you can do for your best chance at success, but please understand how insulting that is.

I never want to interfere in a round, but in the case of abuse I will. Decorum is a voting issue!

I'm volunteering as a judge and I used to be a circuit debater until 2012 getting to about half a dozen or so bid rounds and dropping them all (bummer) and I coached for a year privately after that for a handful of circuit debaters in Washington. I've since been far removed from the activity and have stopped the night sweats caused by fears of judge intervention. After looking at contemporary modern paradigms it seems that the more things change the more things stay the same for LD, so I'll try to recollect and/or rediscover the opinions I used to have. Granted, none of these opinions matter weighted against args made in-round.

Theory, Plans, Ks (I'll need handholding for these) etc. are all cool by me. It seems like most people LARP now, but imo non-consequentialist standards are legit and I think in LD ethics and meta-ethics should be regularly used to nullify offense (offense doesn't exist in a moral vacuum). Consequentialism is fine too but I found many of those debates to be hard to parse/weigh. Even with the best weighing, who can really tell the consequentialist difference between India-Pakistan Nuclear war (and the fallout thereafter) and the existential impact of global warming.

I feel like I default on:

Competing Interps

No RVI

Drop the arg (Not strongly held)

Some abusive arg might disproportionately waste your time to read theory on it if you can't win off it, but the threshold for dropping the arg is also significantly lower. Someone read 6 minutes of NiBs, and a minute of turns, and you go all in on winning NiBs bad and answering the turns then you're still in a good spot where an abusive argument doesn't warrant dropping the debater. I admit that's a cherry-picked example and folks can read disparate kinds of abusive offense that requires multiple T shells to handle.

I feel like I can handle spreading still (I'll say clear as many times as I need to) though I'll likely need to call for the text anyways, and if that's a concern I'll be happy to get a copy of your texts before you speech as I'm a better reader than listener. Speaking and communication matters but not to the extent that I'll ignore the apparent weight of args that are poorly explained, though merely saying "extend contention 1" is insufficient (I don't want to do work for either debater). I think speaks start at 27.5 and are largely impacted by argument clarity as time goes on.

I don't really have an opinion on prepping during cx or asking questions during prep. I'll ask the debaters to agree beforehand on what to do but I'll default to yes to prep during cx and yes to questions during prep. Imo, debaters should always answer clarifying questions about any arg that was presented during cx and prep.

I think disclosure is good but if a debater doesn't want me to disclose to them I won't, not sure if that also means I shouldn't disclose to the opponent.

No matter how intelligible the above seems, please ask me questions before the debate if you have any because I'm absolutely rusty. I'm a software engineer and somehow can't figure out why tabroom is tossing my paradigm's formatting, so sorry for that..

My email is hello@jaydanhoward.com

Email Chain: robdaPFer@gmail.com

I am a former high school debater from Idaho who mostly competed in Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas on the local level and briefly on the national circuit. I am tech over truth unless you try and impact turn structural violence (especially racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia.), in which case you will be dropped outright. Go as fast as you like but at ~340 wpm i will need a speech doc, and slow down for taglines. I am comfortable with theory (so long as it isn't frivolous; read below), my experience with K is very limited so slow down on them and explain them thoroughly, and don't read tricks. MOST IMPORTANTLY: If you plan on reading a progressive arg/spread, make sure your opponent is comfortable with that. If they are not, and you are progressive anyway, you will get dropped with low speaks. I've been on both sides of that sort round, and it is not fun or productive for anyone involved. "Destroying" a novice because they didn't know what condo was doesn't make you cool, I promise. Overall, be good people :)

LD

In general, here is what I want from an LD debate:

- Neg: Don't card dump/off spew in the NC. It makes the debate boring and inherently ruins the debate for the aff. The more you spew, the lower the threshold for responses from the aff. that threshold carries into the NR.

- Extensions are necessary. If you just extend a claim without a warrant, it is basically a waste of time. Quality/quantity. Ghost extensions will not be voted on.

- Collapse. Please. It helps you, it helps me, and it makes the flow cleaner. Plus, you get more time on making your voters as strong as possible. Again, Quality/quantity

- Impact Calc is a very important link in the great chain of winning a debate round. Don't just tell me you o/w on magnitude, explain why. Do the comparative analysis for me so that I don't do it myself, because there's always a likelihood that I don't analyze how you want me to.

- Give me voters.

Value/Criterion: Value/Criterion is important for the debate, but ultimately it is not a voter. I will repeat, Value/Criterion is not a voter. If you tell me you won on, v/c, but nothing else, congratulations you probably lost the round in all honesty. V/c is just how I should be voting, not what in the round I should be voting for, so don't try and make it a voter in your last speech.

General Framework: For framework, I will vote on whatever you tell me. If it becomes a wash, I will vote on whatever my heart tells me to vote on. Make sure I'm voting where you want me to vote, meaning you should be setting up my ballot before voters ;). Same rules apply here as they do for impacts; don't try and tell me that racism is good or that structural violence is alright. That is the quickest way to an L 20.

Plans/CPs: I encourage plans in LD as I think they are beneficial and make the debate more educational. However, the more specific you get the more you open yourself up to theory so be smart about it. For counterplans, I come mostly from PF and as such I don't have much experience around them. So, make sure they're warranted well and I'll vote on them. Finally, if you read a perm, it should make sense and be well warranted.

Theory: Theory is very good for this community. I love a good theory debate, but only if it's theory that matters. The more frivolous the shell, the lower the threshold for responses. That being said, shells that I particularly resonate with are disclosure and condo, so go ham (so long as your opponent is comfortable with it, as explained in the TL;DR)

Topicality: Topicality is fine so long as you are actually pointing out how your opponents are not topical. Please don't try and abuse this. Just like the rest of theory, the more frivolous the shell the lower the threshold

Kritiks: My experience with K debate is very limited, but I know the inherent structure. If you plan on reading a K, don't spread it and explain it thoroughly. I am always open to vote on a K, but if I don't understand it and don't vote on it that is on you, not me.

Tricks: No.

I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.

I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.

What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:

If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.

I like to hear a clear argument, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.

I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!

The most important thing to keep in mind is: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

4 years LD in high school, won second at state my senior year (2016).

Strong preference for traditional style value/criterion debate. It will be very difficult to win my ballot using progressive style tactics; go to policy.

I am generally unsympathetic to esoteric metadebates and won't vote for non-topical arguments unless your theory is well applied and your opponent did something truly deserving of a theory response.

I lean truth over tech but its difficult to win with conceded arguments on the flow.

I want direct clash. Substantively engage with your opponent's points.

Speed is ok, but debate should be coherent. I will say slow and clear as necessary; be cognizant of the online environment.

I will vote for the better debater.

Traditional LD Judge. Competitors must intellectually engage with each other's criterion, contentions, and values (preferably in that order). Framework debates are okay, as long as both competitors verbally agree to the framework in their first speech. K's and plans/counter plans are frowned upon. Resolutional K's will not be considered, as they do not allow for adequate debate between opponents. No spreads; if I cannot write it down, I won't be able to understand it (quality over quantity of arguments).

Be civil and respectful at all times. All philosophical arguments and theories must be cited; your own interpretation and arguments should be novel (thus not be cited). Use your own, unique arguments as plagiarism is not tolerated.

I have been increasingly judging LD and occasionally judging Policy, but the comments below apply equally to both forms of debate. Please include me on Email chains. My Email is livill@hotmail.com

As I frequently tell LD debaters, "My paradigm as an LD judge is that I'm a Policy judge." Ha, ha! I am a Policy judge in the sense that I enjoy debating policy issues, but I have become increasingly more enamored with how LD deals with them as opposed to Policy. I enjoy a good framework debate, especially in LD.

A creative, thoughtful V/C really gets my attention. By that, I mean things other than morality/util. If you’re using FW, it’s especially important to relate your case and your opponent's case back to your V/C to show me the best way to frame the argument. A really great debater can demonstrate that their case better meets both their V/C and their opponent’s VC and does so more effectively than their opponent. I am fine with plans and counterplans, but if you're going to run a CP, make sure you understand how to do so. I am fine with theory debates as long as you relate them back to some actual argument. But, beware: I am more interested in arguments dealing with the topic than arguments dealing with the theory of debate.

Whether we’re debating a prospective policy in LD or in Policy, I believe that if we recognize something is a problem, we need to resolve it, which requires a solution. For me, that means stock issues and some kind of resolution of the harms the Aff delineates. You can rarely, if ever, go wrong, by arguing appropriate stock issues. For me, the two primary stock issues are solvency, which is key to evaluating the effectiveness of a policy and inherency, which few teams understand or argue effectively, but, which real, live, adult policy makers use every day to determine responses to problems. I vote for presumption the way any good policy maker would in the public sector – if it hasn’t been proven to be broken, don’t fix it.

I like a good T debate, but, not on cases when virtually any rational person would agree that a case is topical. I am far more likely to buy that a case is “reasonably” topical than I am to agreeing that it must meet some arcane Neg definition of a term like “it” or “is.” Also, this absurd argument that everyone should disclose their case before the round begins will gain no traction with me. One of the benefits of debate is learning how to respond quickly and effectively to new ideas and information on your feet. If you’re not prepared to debate the topic, stay home. There are other reasons to reject most Affs that involve arguments on actual issues, so use those issues instead of whining that you’ve never heard this case before.

I’m generally not a fan of K affs but sadly (for me) I will listen to anything and judge it as neutrally as possible. If you’re going to run a K aff, please be sure it has some dim unique link to the topic. Ditto for Ks run on the Neg. Also, and this is particularly for K Affs, please don’t take the tack that because you got up and read a speech or performed in front of me that I am legally, morally and ethically required to vote for you.

I am also a “policy” judge; after over 25 years as a Foreign Service Officer in the United States Department of State, I know what a coherent policy looks like and how, in the real world, policies are developed and implemented. Cases that don't offer a real policy with at least some nebulous solution to the problem, i.e. cases that offer some ephemeral philosophy that a judge is supposed to implement through "in-round solvency ballot-signing" are relatively unattractive to me. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but only when the Neg won't make the most minimal effort to argue the case in context of stock issues or policy-making.

I also look at who won which issues: who won the most important stock issues and which policy solved the problem more effectively with the fewest disadvantages and made the better sense, so, ultimately, it's about persuasion as well. I will vote for cases I don't like and don't think are topical or inherent, for example, if the Neg either fails to respond effectively or simply can't win the argument. I will not make your arguments for you or infer what you meant to say.

THINGS THAT LESSEN YOUR CHANCES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND WINNING MY BALLOT: Really long, long, long taglines, especially ones that contain large amounts of philo/psychobabble gobbledegook. If your tag line is longer than the piece of evidence you cite, that’s a problem. Debaters who don't pause between taglines and the evidence will lose me. Stock DAs with no unique link to the current Aff being debated will bore me and it’s hard to take them seriously. Poor refutation organization is a killer - if you don't tell me where you're going, it's hard to follow you and you significantly decrease your chances of me putting the argument where YOU want it. Please understand that I flow arguments, not authors. When you extend an author whose name I have not flowed, I don’t know where to put the extension. Anyway, you’re not extending evidence as much as you’re extending an ARGUMENT. When you extend your argument, tell me which specific contention, advantage, argument or subpoint you’re refuting. Line by line is good! I really, really HATE debates that become primarily about the theory of how we're debating the issue than about the issue itself. In terms of speed, less is more. I like to be persuaded and if I can't understand what you're saying, then, you're not very persuasive. Please speak up and speak clearly, especially if it’s an online tournament.

Hello Debaters!

I competed in both LD and Policy while I was in high school; two years of both at open level. Ever since then, I've been judging both formats when available for quite a while, and as of late have begun picking up Policy, LD, and Public Forum ballots.

Due to my history, my judging style is still heavily based upon how I acted in round as a competitor. I rely predominantly on the flow, but I still strongly look to any well-constructed policy/case arguments in round.

Philosophy-wise, I am first and foremost a Tabula Rasa judge. Playing against a clean slate with your opponent (and with your partners) creates the most pure form of debate; it is in my mind that entering the round attempting to meta-game the debate by over-analyzing what your judge is biased towards butchers the debate itself. I will try my hardest in round to be as impartial and accepting as possible to begin with; however, I am human, and all humans have biases. If you can glean these (hopefully small) edges in round, then all the better for you!

The only other major factor of debate that I feel necessary highlighting is my perspective on K's/ Theory arguments. To put it bluntly, I will be having a much harder time accepting these arguments as compared to my judging peers. I've seen K's used almost exclusively as a method to steer the round toward a certain argument, regardless of resolution, as a form which are designed to be a lot less preparable than anything actually topical. I've had far too many negative experiences as a judge to accept any of these as a strategical decision; Anything short of a K being used for in-round insults is strongly discouraged.

1AC K's are right out.

As far as speed is concerned... It probably won't be much of an issue? I wasn't the fastest debater in the world, and I am a touch rusty, but I should be able to keep up with the speed of most standard debate rounds that I'm operating in. What may be an issue, however, is clarity. I will try my best to warn any and all debaters who are not speaking clearly in round, and if said warnings are ignored, your speeches will simply not be flowed.

One final note - I'm a judge, and judges like things easy for them. Concise, clear, and signposted speeches (especially towards the end of a round!) make it a lot easier for me to follow arguments without having to apply too much mental horsepower after the round, and it makes my life easier to make yours better. Please don't just blindly signpost covered arguments as dropped, however - I'm not quite that lazy!

-Eric McCormick

I Like clash so try to argue all your opponent's contentions. make sure to address all issues that are brought up through the debate and not to drop anything anything dropped inflow will not be used for the final decision unless brought back up. try not to spread I prefer a clear argument where all the points and arguments can be heard

I debated for Central Valley High School and Gonzaga University. I've done many forms of debate, but I primarily have experience with LD, PB, and policy. Generally, I'm familiar with philosophical, critical, and policy style arguments. Debate is an important place for educational autonomy, so you can run the arguments you prefer and I'll do my best to adapt. I will not vote for debaters who intentionally try to exclude their opponent from genuine participation in the round. Additionally, I don't like frivolous theory arguments, so you need to make strong impact arguments if you decide to make them. If you have more specific questions feel free to ask.

A stance of assumed ignorance will be taken, only information presented in cases will be taken into consideration when weighing cases.

Note speed when presenting case is fine however keep in mind if attempting to speak in a manner that Opp isn't able that completely comprehend all pts that perhaps I am also unable to follow.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

GENERAL PARADIGM and NOTES - or, "I really hate speed"

Exception: I do not vary from the paradigm stated below with one exception. If both teams desire to speak fast with the understanding that doing so will deprive me of the opportunity to flow the round, they may agree in ADVANCE of beginning the round to “speed” with the understanding that I will listen to the debate, but not flow a single word.

I do not like speed. I believe that the debater’s job is to communicate to the audience. This position is reinforced by the Washington State ELAR’s which require teachers and all persons working with high school students to teach students to communicate at a rate which facilitates communication. I do not interrupt students by yelling “clear” or “slow” during a round. I simply judge the debate.

I am a strict flow judge. If I do not get it in my flow, it doesn’t exist. I don’t care how much I think that the debater meant to make a particular argument or even if I am convinced that he or she did make the argument. If I didn’t get it in my flow, I will not vote on it. Debaters should not, therefore, speak faster than I can flow.

Finally, I will not decide any debate until after the round and after I have had an opportunity to thoroughly examine my flow. I will not reveal a decision unless directed by the tournament director to do so. I will provide an oral critique if allowed by the tournament director, but I keep my critiques short and to the point. Don't expect me to have a lot to say - I'll leave notes in the ballot but I value your time too much to go on and on about the round.

Hi.

This is Tim Pollard.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2024):

Yearly small note addition before I judge my one-ish tournament of the season, content of last year's note is all you really need to know (but my hearing has improved dramatically).

JanFeb 2024 is a topic that concerns several rapidly-developing global crisis. Evidence that describes the behavior of states a decade ago is probably really questionable. Evidence the describes the relations between countries in the region more than 6 months ago is probably pretty questionable. You should ask your opponent these questions.

** I am going to be very willing to accept reasonable analysis made by a debater about current states of affairs over outdated evidence. **

Brief note for LD Debaters (2023):

Every year I stray further from meaningful investment in debate. All the things below are probably still true, but I have spent even less time involved in the activity than previously. Be gentle. I can hopefully still flow your speed but my sound discrimination is completely shot so make sure you are exceptionally clear at whatever speed you debate.

To summarize the decade of rambling that follows, the process to get me to vote for you is:

a. explain what you are defending.

b. explain why that is different from the other side.

c. explain why that means you win.

I will probably laugh if you structure every argument with each of these three points but based on a lot of the debates I've judged in the past few years it would probably also result in the easiest ballot of my life voting for you.

Brief note for LD Debaters (2022):

Short notes to actually reflect the sort of debates I seem to be judging.

The space topic is complex and kindof unclear about what actually constitutes topical ground. Please make it extremely clear what constitutes "appropriation" and what your position says about it. I will be heavily rewarding debaters who leverage this fact in the speaker points department and think it will greatly improve your strategic position.

util mirrors reward nuance and in-depth analysis. You should be able to identify what the current direction of the status quo is (uniqueness) what the affirmative does to affect that condition (link) and what the implication is for people (impact). Your speech should reflect this structure and the more explicitly you develop what each portion of the argument ("the economy is collapsing now so there's no risk to the disadvantage", "chinese emissions mean US action can't change the status quo") the more directed I will be towards voting for you.

the easiest way to increase your speaker points beyond that on the negative is to not waste speech time reading a nonsense framework that is just "act utilitarianism" when your opponent has already done so. If your framework offers an actual strategic advantage, go ahead but if your 2nc is going to be a body count against the aff's bodycount please don't spend 20s of the 1n telling me why "justice subsumes morality" (please never say that in any debate).

Note for LD debaters (2020):

Below you will find a paradigm that reflects what I've been doing in debate for the last 5 years - infrequently judging policy debates. All the points translate pretty directly back to how I feel about LD. Though I should add that I do have a reasonable amount of familiarity with "LD-style" arguments, so don't worry that I won't like your Kant Aff. I would love to hear your Kant aff.

However, policy debate HAS spoiled me by not having to deal with some of the ... idiosyncrasies of LD debate. Three aimless rant sections identified with bold if you don't have time to read the corpus and need to check what's relevant to you.

First, I think Theory debates in LD generally sit somewhere between asinine and making the activity of debate actively worse. If yr ideal 1ar involves metatheory, I am likely not your judge. I also really don't want to judge any theory debate that would make "Reading util against a Kant aff and then going to case" an impermissible negative strategy (AFC / ACC sort of things). Arguments like theory-justified frameworks are pretty close to that as well, seems like cowards moves. That said THERE ARE DEFINITELY TIMES WHERE YOU CAN AND SHOULD READ THEORY AND THAT'S OK. TOPICALITY is a different class of argument from theory and you should read it.

Second, at an in-person debate event, i would be unable to flow yr a-through-f enumerated warp-speed-delivered 5-word-each wall of spikes. I can't imagine this gets better over Zoom, so enunciate. Slow down a little, or i'm liable to miss the third reason why moral skepticism affirms and I will not vote on it when it shows up in the rebuttal. This is also true in the theory debate. If yr strat is to make your opponent miss something in the cloud of chaff, I'm likely to miss it as well and won't feel bad about not voting on it.

Third, some of the notes on K debates below likely operate slightly differently in LD than in policy debate (or maybe they don't.. i have no idea what the metagame looks like these days). Short version: Yes I will vote for your critical argument. It is absolutely crucial that you explain how it functions and under what understanding of the world and debate I should vote for it if that differs from "the resolution is true/false". I've probably forgotten most of the buzzwords so walk me through it.

Please feel free to ask me questions before the round if you want something made more clear or it's not in the doc - I don't spend a lot of time in-depth thinking about debate anymore so I'm sure it's imperfect. timapollard is my google email handle if you have q's. (Actually does this tournament even have prefs? You might just be stuck with me and I hope to provide better service than the average rando. Good luck.)

Top-level (Following material assumed policy debate but still applies generally):

The first thing I evaluate in debates are questions of uniqueness or differentiation. You will win if you prove why whatever you did in your speech is distinct and preferable from your opponents.

I usually think of debate as a game (in the strategic and competitive sense). That doesn’t mean that it lacks extrinsic value or is bound to specific sets of norms or forms of strategy. But does mean that things like speech time limits and my ability to sign a ballot deciding a winner are non-optional. Prep ends when you email the doc or otherwise transmit your speech to the opponent.

The ability for me to understand the structure of your argument is a prerequisite for me to evaluate it, so debaters have a positive burden to explain the function and operation of their argument. I am willing to vote on presumption if either I cannot describe to myself what an argument does or can be persuaded by either side wrt it's non-function.

Judging the round is based on the comparative quality of argument as presented. The most important thing is that your chosen form of argumentation displays knowledge of the issues and is compellingly defended. The more you sound well-researched and engaged in the issues, the better points I'm likely to give you.

I evaluate performance in CrossX compatibly to a speech.

I flow on paper and might ask you for some. I still want the doc, but pay attention because I don't want to (and probably won't) dredge up yr args from some speech doc if I couldn't catch them in the speech. I'm usually pretty good at saying if I can't flow you.

Assorted Specifics:

This is the first tournament I have judged on the arms sales topic. Assume my knowledge of the topic is imperfect - as mentioned, yr burden to make me get yr arg.

Plan is implemented and matters debates

I don't subscribe to the offence/defense paradigm and believe in the ability of sufficiently complete defense/lack-of-link to take out an impact.

Going for the permutation against a criticism in your big silly impacts aff generally just sounds weird and you are actually going for "case outweighs" anyway. Seriously just talk about how sweet your aff is. The permutation is a fundamentally defensive argument.

Go for T against policy affs more. Folks are getting away with WAY too much.

KvK debates

First, generating external impacts and/or differentiating your impact claim is critical. Often these debates get gummed up in both teams winning that they solve and the other team causes some amount of violence/oppression - with me left to muck through and pick an internal link story, tending to have people end up unhappy.

Second, explain how yr perm works in the context of the debate round - what does it mean for me to endorse/reject a permutation? The argument that affs don't get permutations in these situations (method v method debate) threatens to make sense but also has to work through my presumption that the negative must prove something the aff does/assumes/engages with is bad. Generally you should not expect to win just for having another good idea.

Clash debates

I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded by args that reduce to FW: Ks are bad. Stop whining and defend yr aff.

I generally think affirmatives should take an affirmative position wrt the topic area (this doesn't mean you need a plan or to defend the politics DA or whatever).

Debates where I vote for critical affirmatives against T usually hinge on the aff either successfully defending what distinguishes the affirmative from a negative arg against topical affs, or winning impact turns. You will benefit from putting a lot of defensive pressure on the neg's impacts - which tend to be poorly developed.

Both sides - don't fall into the trap of forgetting the 1AC. At the end of the day the 1AC happened and its ability to solve is likely strongly determinant of a lot of the rest of the debate.

T debaters: Stop going for the truth-testing 'assume all their args are false because we can't research them' stuff.

In the days before ordinary people had computers in their homes, I competed in congress and CX, and with self-reported great success in all IE events (except oratory) at almost every conceivable tournament hosted in the state of Utah, plus one in Louisiana (extemp at NCFL nationals). After high school, I judged and continued to assist for several years. I studied musical theatre in college before receiving a degree in math and physics. I have a masters of statistics in econometrics and now practice law in southwest Washington. I have been judging most offered events in southwest Washington for several years.

Speed

I prefer to be able to understand and follow your arguments. Persuasiveness, sincerity, and a little bit of prose is likely more effective than having so many points of argument that your opponent can't counter, or worse, that I didn't even get your point. Neither Lincoln nor Douglas spoke so fast their audience could not follow.

Arguments

As a practicing attorney, I believe in the rule of law and the rules of evidence. Arguments should support the conclusion and be meaningful to the debate. An argument that is supported by evidence weighs heavier than conclusory statements. But, this is LD and evidence should be minimal.

You should probably not waste a lot of time on theory. I don't mind a brief discussion, but any sort of depth is likely to go over my head. If something is reasonably fair, it should be allowed. Conversely, if an argument is raised without an opportunity to rebut it, I won't pay any attention to it.

Presumption - I don't have a preference for one side or the other and don't believe either side has a presumption. The debate is won by presenting a good case and successfully arguing against your opponent.

Value vs. Criteria - If you use this structure, the value is the target and the criteria is why I should choose the value. While these tend to be presented as the structure of the case, much of the time they are really just something debaters use to fill time and provide something else they can metaphorically point to as a reason for a decision. A good debater will explain why each point of their case meets the criteria and how the overall plan proves the value. Or, value and criteria may not even be necessary if the case supports the topic.

Feel free to give me voters in final speeches.

Sign-posting

It is very helpful to relate your arguments back to the flow of either side of the case. It is not, however, necessary to keep things in a linear order. If you have a point that directly refutes one of your opponent's points, say so with a brief explanation and move on.

Speaker Points

Win/loss is based on the arguments. Speaker points relate to how well you presented. I won't hesitate to give the winner fewer points. Speaker points start at around 28, but can go either direction based on clarity, confidence and continuity. Try to avoid vocal fry and always show respect.

I am a Lincoln-Douglas Debate alumni, having done it all four years throughout high school, and I've been judging since 2018. I want to see clean, well reasoned rounds; this is VALUES debate, and your values should be your highest priority. I care more about how you work within your framework, your opponent's framework, or both, than minor statistical evidence crammed into your contentions. Those matter, of course - evidence matters, it gives your argument teeth - but if you're fixating on that to the exclusion of your framework and the broader scope of your argument, then you are missing the point of the debate form.

So, prove your framework deserves a spot at the table. Show how your opponent fails to uphold it. Prove that either your opponent's framework doesn't deserve consideration or show how you function under it and even uphold it better than them, or demonstrate that your opponent's case/argument doesn't function under their framework.

Other important things:

-I don't like spreading (i.e. excessively fast speaking, to the extent that pauses and emphases are sacrificed in the name of speed). In my opinion, if you're spreading in an LD round, you're in the wrong debate type. LD is about reasoned arguments, not who can cram more into six minutes than their opponent. In addition to the actual argumentation, I am judging you based on your speaking ability, and you abandon all pretense of effective oratory when you spread.

Speaking fast is fine - I can deal with speed, but spreading is a no. I will not flow it. Hustle, don't hurry.

-On a similar note, I am a traditional LD debater/judge. I can keep up with progressive LD to an extent, but if you start spraying jargon you're running the risk that I don't know what you're talking about. I did not do policy debate, where much of it originated from, and so do not assume I am going to know what your jargon means. Explain to me what you are doing, or trying to do, and you'll be fine.

I don't find extinction arguments convincing, both because I find the links tend to be weak at best outside of very specific topics, and because they are overdone and uninteresting. It's the big hammer in impact calculus, and tend to have very little to do with value debate.

Aside from that, speak well, speak with reason, and be polite and kind to one another. Your tournament placing is not worth the enmity of your peers or judges if you are not. Debate is a sport, not a blood sport.

I am a traditional LD judge. Progressive debate is fine (plans/counter-plans, K cases, framework), but must be solidly grounded in scholarly research that ties tightly to the resolution -- and must engage with the opponent. Please be courteous. No spreading. I like a nice clean background. Be mindful of your camera and lighting. Good luck!

Parent judge who has judged PF & LD both. If you spread, I probably won't be able to flow it, so speak at a reasonable pace. Progressive arguments are fine as long as they make sense. Signpost clearly so I can follow your speech.

I've done both PF and LD at the state and local levels respectively to address questions/fears about my competence or debate experience. Unfortunately did it for 4 years in high school. Tried it in college. Have gone to nationals many times.

Now that that's over, anything flys. I'm cool with speed if you enunciate clearly. Whether or not the debate is allowed to be progressive or traditional lies in how both debaters frame the round, but I do appreciate at least attempting to recognize the value and value criterion in your arguments. I don't care about what happens in cross x. Don't drop arguments, make sure there is lots of clash, and prioritize voters. Emphasize arguments/points important to the round (don't say it just once) or I might not write it down. I won't make arguments for either debater so make sure to fill in the gaps. Let me know how you want time signals and prep. Otherwise, I keep official time with time signals at 1 min remaining, 30, 15, etc, and prep will be given with verbal prompts in 30 second intervals. Have fun.

I was an active competitor in HS and college. I currently coach Newport HS.

I do have my Ph.D. in Composition and Rhetoric, so I can follow your logic, and if you choose theory, I have a VERY high bar.

As far as spreading, I do not like it. I have a hearing impairment - and spreading can make following you difficult. I can only judge what I am able to hear. I will ask you to slow down if it is too fast or unclear the first time. If you start "super spreading" I will not give you more than 25 speaker points, because the speed truly detracts from the art of speaking.

Make sure to stay respectful to your competitor, as well as me. Disrespectful words or attitudes will result in a lower score.

I like arguments that have a clear value asserted and pursued. The more sign-posting and off-clock road maps the better. Also, I love to hear the voters at the end.

I am open to many types of arguments - but make sure you let me what criteria to judge the round - and how you fulfilled it. That is your responsibility as a debater- not mine as a judge.

I am humanity-centered. I know you will be running theories, hypotheticals, and extrapolating a significant amount, but remember, these topics affect real people. If you run cases that dismiss the humanity of the topic or dismiss the humanity of any specific group of people, your score will reflect omission.

Hello! I’m Lucas (He/Him/His), I debated LD throughout high school for South Kitsap—finaling at the WA state tournament and going to Nationals in my senior year. I now debate policy for Western Washington University, coach debate for Eastside Catholic, and teach debate occasionally for Climb the Mountain. I've experimented with a lot of styles over the years: traditional LD, policy (aff and neg), performance, and Kritikal. The latter has been where I've settled if you're interested.

Add me to the email chain, though I can handle speed just fine: ldwatson2000@gmail.com

tl;dr:

I consider myself truly tabula rasa, like many judges. However I am only human and thus prone to either implicit bias or selective familiarity with certain arguments over others. These are detailed below for your convenience (though don't let my paradigm dissuade you from what you are comfortable with).

General:

There is one loser and one winner. Speaker points are not really debateable. Time limits should be followed. Disclosure on the wiki is good. I generally believe tech over truth but you can absolutely convince me otherwise in round. I will not evaluate who belongs to which identity group and generally will not use allegations of things that happened outside of the round in my decision. Please do report those things to other adults who are in charge. Further than that, anything that happens within round is fair game, but must be argued in such a way that it can be evaluated on the ballot.

Policy/larp: Not much to say, go for it. However, please avoid contrived scenarios with poor internal links.

K:

K affs should probably have contextual answers to framework. If they do not defend the hypothetical implementation of the resolution then I hold them to a far higher standard on the case page—if it is reducible to just racism/capitalism/oppression bad without any unique elaboration or insight then how is it to be evaluated within the specific round? You aren’t bound by the resolution by choice, so make that choice worth the risk.

Make framework count—you are creating a radically different and reactive vision of debate. Instead of focusing specifically on punishing deviance, a strong framework 2nr should explain why their model or debate is net beneficial, probably through a creative and carded tva.

1nc shells should generally contain contexualized links and you should be able to explain in detail at the very least the entire work (so if it’s a book, the whole book or at least what is relevant...) from which the cards you expound upon on in the 2nr are cut. You don’t need to restate the tags unless there is a benefit.

K’s I have read extensively (though I do not pref any):

Hauntology

SetCol

Queer

Cap/Marxism

Performance:

Performance affs can transmit narratives that the overall White, male cisheteronormative debate space tends to ignore—and I respect that that cannot be expressed in more traditional formats. To compel me to give you the ballot, please make the implications of your performance last beyond the 1ac timer beep—and, more importantly, embody it throughout the entire round! I like to see both a natural and strategic evolution and a consistent narrative and performative ethos in both k and performance debates.

Negative teams, please come up with some creative links and plausible examples when going for Cap against these affs. I know the narrative of your 1nc shell already; can you make it as unique and compelling as the 1ac? Do “boring politics” have to be boring? Please understand I’m a busy pre-law student running on far too little sleep and a narcoleptic tendency when these flows take a turn towards less...stellar/substantive debating.

DA: Blow me away. The more tenuous the link, though, the smaller amount of internal links you can likely get away with. Picture the graph of e^-x. Impact turns are strategic sometimes, more often attenuated, and often morally repugnant—but, if argued consistently, can get my ballot.

CP: Explain the net benefit (please). Have a clear delineated text. I don’t really have any preferences/opinions on types: that is for in-round theory to decide. I need a better articulation than just buzz words for a good CP debate--What does your perm mean? Why is their CP bad in terms of the debate model? (I'd like more here than just "education" and "fairness").

T/theory: I love it and, similar to CPs, have no overarching preferences toward what can and cannot be run. I am totally fine with rounds being reduced to theory debates—just make sure I know why I’m supposed to accept your interpretation and subsequently give you the ballot based on it. Weighing procedurals against anything your opponent might be winning will help your position immensely.

If there are any questions/concerns, feel free to ask me before the round starts with both debaters present.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Doug Weinmaster is a parent judge with prior experience in PF, LD, and IE events.

I do not need off time road maps, and I do not appreciate spreading. I prefer that you weigh your impacts. Please speak at a slow enough pace that I can understand. If I cannot understand you, I will stop flowing.

Contentious but respectful debaters will earn the highest speaker points.

I award "bonus" speaker points for:

a) Reference to a specific type of aircraft or spacecraft;

b) Use of a line from any classic "80's" movie . . . i.e. "I feel the need . . . the need for speed!"; or

c) Reference to, or use of a line from a John Grisham novel or movie about lawyers.

Congratulations - because your participation in Speech & Debate means you have already "won" by developing your skills, knowledge, and confidence!

I have been a coach for 50+ years and am favorable to traditional arguments. If you have a traditional case I would suggest reading it in front of me.

1. I won't evaluate non-topical arguments/performances etc. 
2. I do not like tricks and wont evaluate them.
3. I will evaluate kritiks as long as I understand how they function in the round.
4. If you want to spread I am ok with speed, however if I put my pen down I am not flowing.  You must be clear; I will be flowing from your speech not a doc.
5. If there is abuse in round just explain it in layman's terms and warrant it. I will not be a good judge for evaluating friv theory arguments.

I am a traditional/flow LD judge. Progressive debate is fine (plans/counter-plans, K cases, framework) but must be solidly grounded in research that ties tightly to the resolution -- and must engage with the opponent (i.e. resolutional Ks tend to fail with me because that leaves no room for the opponent's case). Courtesy to your opponent matters. Please keep spreading to a minimum!

Background

Add me to the email chain if there is one: emilyzhang242@gmail.com

I'm a new judge and am unfamiliar with the literature.

I did four years of LD debate mainly on the Texas local circuit back in 2010. I also did one semester of policy in college, so I consider my knowledge in that area surface level at best.

Preferences

- I'll be flowing (probably badly if you're speaking super quickly though, but I will yell clear or slow. That being said however, I don't trust Zoom, so it would be in your best interest to slow down).

- Speed: I might have trouble if you go super fast but if you have to in order to finish, be sure to be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names.

- k's/theory: not as familiar, but I'm open to anything, so try not to make me do work and we should be fine. If I don't understand it, I probably won't vote on it so please explain it thoroughly. I don't like exclusionary arguments thouh

- cx/prep: it's fine to ask cx questions during prep. I don't flow cx and will only count concessions if you point them out for me in the next speech

- voters: please give me voters at the end of the NR and 2AR. Tell me what matters and weigh it against your opponent's impacts. Dropped arguments won't be used for the final decision unless brought back up. I won't vote on something if I wasn't able to flow it.

- extensions: extend warrants and please collapse. It will make things so much easier for me to evaluate. Also definitely prefer clear signposting.

Please don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic, and don't be mean to newer debaters.