LD effectuve communication

LD - The first thing I look at is value/criterion/framework. Framework is how you craft your moral world; your job is to establish your moral world and convince me we must affirm/negate on the basis of your world's moral system. The winning framework is how I judge the round. Example: If the winning framework tells me that absolute freedom is to be valued over human life, then an argument that Neg contributes to a high death toll holds little weight, because human life is not what we're trying to achieve. SO DON'T DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE; pull it through, and explain to me how the contention level matches with and upholds your framework.

PF - I vote for the team that can best uphold their case through analysis and evidence. If you don't tell me WHY something matters, I don't care - give me impacts! Example: I don't care about terrorism unless you tell me why I should care about terrorism, otherwise you're just throwing out a buzz-word. If you provide framework, the arguments for your case AND arguments against your opponent's case should work in the world of your framework - don't contradict yourself.

BQ - Definitions are SO important. In Big Question, the topic is very vague and broad; you need to clearly define your terms and the context in which you are building your arguments. If you debate against your opponent's definition, give me a good reason to believe your definition instead. If the definitions are similar enough or don't impact the round, you do not have to debate them. For voting, I first look to framing (observations, definitions), then evaluate contention level based on framing. I look for logical consistency. I like examples. I like to know the credentials for your sources.

CURRENT OCCUPATION: Attorney

POLICY DEBATE: Policymaker.

LD DEBATE: I will decide who wins the value/criterion debate, and then assess the resolution/contentions through that lens.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE:

TLDR: Experienced former public forum debater and coach. If you want specifics, read further.

This is the debate event with which I have the most experience. While in high school, I was a South Dakota state champion, runner-up, and quarter finalist during my four years. I qualified to the national tournament in public forum debate my junior and senior year and participated in out-rounds both years. I have extensive judging experience and have been a coach for public forum debate.

If you're going to have a framework: (1) it must be fair; (2) it should advance your case/contentions; and (3) it should be brought up in every speech.

If one or both teams provide a framework that meets my above three requirements, I will decide which one is better and use it to frame the resolution/contention debate.

Number of responses don't impress me as much as the quality of your responses. A team can give 15 responses, but if one good response wipes out the logical basis of those responses, I will give more weight to the one response.

I prefer a very organized final focus that summarizes the clash in the debate and firmly resolves why your responses were stronger. I do not enjoy just a summary of the debate and what each team said. Tell me why you were better. In essence: your speech should be what I write on the ballot. "Write the ballot for me."

I participated in Public Forum debate from 2014-2018.

• Flow: I try to maintain a solid flow and jot down points, subpoints, impacts (numbers/why the point matters). I am listening for solid arguments with evidence, links, and warrants. Avoid speed reading.

• Framework: If presented and uncontested, I will use it to weigh the round.

• Rebuttal: Provide a line by line response. You can group points/subpoints if responding the same to both arguments.

• Summary: Address both sides of the flow, whether line by line or focusing on voting issues. Be organized and clear in your debating.

• Final Focus: Condense the debate into 2-3 major voting issues backed by evidence. Respond directly to opponents' arguments. I expect to hear lots of weighing in this speech.

• Weighing: Compare the Pro/con world and explain why you win. Make sure to weigh in Summary and Final Focus, I also like to hear weighing in rebuttal if you have time.

Debaters in both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate need to stay focused on their resolutions. In LD, proving a philosophy doesn't matter if debaters can't prove their resolution to be true. Whether or not a person has a value or a criterion doesn't matter, as long as that person can prove or disprove the resolution. However, looking at a resolution through the lens of a particular value can be helpful.

Remember, the words in each resolution are there for a reason. Aff/Pro debaters need to defend them. Neg/Con debaters need to prove that they aren't true. Debaters also need to make sure they speak clearly.

Speed isn't a problem as long as a person speaks loudly and clearly. If people have any doubts whether or not they can be heard and understood, then they need to slow down. As a judge, all the evidence and analysis in the world are for naught if a debater cannot be understood.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Speed:

If I am unable to understand what you are saying, especially when you are reading cards, I am not going to flow it. In my opinion, both your opponent and myself need to be able to understand what you and your cards are saying in order for there to be a debate. So if you want to speak fast, then you are most likely not gonna get my vote.

Framework:

I consider framework as a way to view the round. When debating framework, I prefer arguments that pertain to the context of the resolution more so to the arguments against the actual theory. For example, there is a common card to use against KCI that talk about how Kant does not allow for rebellion. However, in the context of space appropriation, rebellions against the government are not topical (or at least of what I have seen) and therefore is not really an argument against KCI in the context of the resolution.

Contentions:

I don't have a preference of what you run for contentions but make sure it makes sense, is clear, and that it aligns with your framework. I weigh analysis more than examples.

Voters:

Make sure to weigh your points under the framework and weigh frameworks in both a vacuum and in the context of the debate.

Extemp:

In the introduction, make sure you filter to your question just like you do when writing a paper. The introduction should provide the general background necessary to understand your speech and also establishes why your topic/issue is important. The introduction should be no more than 1:00-1:15; I more curious about your answer to the question as well as how your analysis supports your arguments than an introduction.

Make sure your main points are clear and distinct. Make sure your presentation in each point is logical and clear in reaching your argument. Make sure your points answer the question as it is worded. If you question has to do if so and so can do something, then you best talk about if they can and not about if they should or would.

Use sources for a purpose and properly introduce them. For citing sources, I expect publisher, date (not just the year or time reference like just last week), and realistically you should be citing the author as you do when writing a paper. After citing your sources, make sure to provide analysis and that the analysis is new. You should not be saying the same thing, in different words, as you made your point and need to move on.

Make sure to have transitions like you do when writing a paper. That is there, should be topic sentence and a concluding sentence that transitions your speech to your next main point.

Your conclusion should only be about 45 seconds and make sure to restate your question and a brief (one or two sentence) summary of each of your points.

Background

I did varsity policy debate and Domestic extemp for 4 years at Watertown, SD high school. During that time I qualified for NSDA Nationals 2 times in policy debate and was a 3 time place winner at the SDHSAA state tournament. I judge fairly consistently throughout the season.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

LD Paradigm

I have started judging more LD since policy is no longer a thing in South Dakota. I don't have a super deep understanding of all the philosophy but I do generally understand most of the frameworks I've heard. For me, I prefer a good framework debate backed up with solid contention level arguments. If you can put those two things together I am usually pretty happy. I prefer debate with clash. If you plan on both agreeing to the same framework you will need some good offense on the contention level.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

PF Paradigm

I enjoy it when there is good, legitimate clash within the round that extends past the first 4 speeches of the round. Impact things out for me. If you are going to be reading framework in the round relate your contention level arguments back to your framework. Weigh your framework against theirs and tell me why I should prefer yours.

If a card is called for, to me, this is dead time in the round. No one is doing anything. The team that needs to provide the evidence finds it swiftly, the team who called for the evidence looks at what they need to see with their prep running, and then we resume with the next thing in the round whether that be a teams prep, cross-fire, or a speech. If you are looking for evidence and your partner is prepping, your prep will be running.

In the end I prefer good solid arguments that are fleshed out well. Explain to me how you've won the round, sort of write my ballot for me in a sense.

Policy Paradigm (A thing of the past in SD)

Speed- No preference. I only evaluate what I have flowed, and if I can’t understand it chances are it’s not flowed. I don’t need a copy of the speeches, I will ask for cards at the end of the round if I need to look at something.

Tag team CX- Prompt your partner, or provide tags and dates, but don’t dominate if it’s not your CX.

Prep- I don’t take time for flashing unless it becomes excessive. I will more than likely not stop prep when you ask me to, so beware of that. If you tell me to end prep, and you are still talking and typing on your computer, prep will keep going. Prep stealing will not be tolerated.

T- Don’t run it as a time suck. I rarely will vote on potential abuse, even if clearly dropped by the aff. My view is that T is all or nothing, so if you’re going to close for it, you had better be doing 5 minutes of T in the 2NR. Aff is presumed topical until shown otherwise. That being said, if they are truly not within the resolution—I will be more likely to vote on T.

Disadvantages- If you are not reading a DA on the neg you better have something to blow them out of the water. I tend to be very easily persuaded by no link analyticals and uniqueness overwhelms the link claims made by the affirmative. I think that there needs to be a clear link between affirmative action and the scenario that the neg is proposing. You the DA as leverage against the aff’s advantages. I am a huge fan of disad solves case arguments. Politics disads typically turn into a wash for me, absent a huge mistake by the affirmative. I don’t think that the link story of Congressional members ditching their parties or the whole Congressional body switching their votes from the Uniqueness that has been read are even mildly plausible.

Kritik- I was never a big fan of them when I was debating. If you are going to run one and want me to vote on it, you must do several things. First—have an alt that is very similar to a 1AC’s plan text, something that can actually happen if I were to vote negative. Second, you have to have clear solvency for that alt. I will be weighing the K against the aff’s advantages in terms of comparative solvency.

Counterplans- I think that CP’s should challenge the aff’s advocacy or provide a better method of solving the impacts in the aff case. The counterplan must be non-topical, otherwise I will almost immediately vote aff on the perm. In the same fashion as K’s I will be weighing the CP against the aff case in terms of comparative solvency. The CP must solve the impacts of the 1AC—otherwise running the CP is pointless in my mind. CP has to have a clear Net benefit that is not “It’s better than the aff”. You need to have something bad that the aff plan would trigger, but the CP avoids, this is where your generic disads come into play.

Ask questions before that round or email me at my tabroom address if there is anything you want clarified, or anything I didn’t cover that you would like to know.

Good luck!

I prefer debate that is suitable for a courtroom. Professional, clear, and well organized. Usually frameworks are a waste of time.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

I debated in the mid 1980's, almost exclusively inside South Dakota and coached some HS debate while I was attending college in Minnesota. I continued to judge some throughout the 90's. In the mid 2010's, I re-engaged with the activity. In the 2021-22 season, I added a part-time gig, becoming the assistant coach at SF Jefferson.

Policy: I'm a 1980's policymaker, weighing advantages vs disadvantages, but I will certainly vote on stock issues in the real absence of inherency, solvency or topicality.

Debate started changing dramatically in the late 70's and I was in the first wave of spread 1.0, almost laughable when compared to today's spread on the circuit and collegiate level. I believe spread and K's pushed policy debate to an extreme that required the creation of PF. The speed of today's South Dakota PF feels a lot like 1980's policy debate, quick, but nothing close to crazy. I am making it somewhat of a personal mission to keep PF from tipping over the edge.

I outlined my thought on judging policy above.

Public Forum: I am looking for clash -- real clash and sound logical reasoning and quality extension evidence that makes your case. Don't paraphrase. I consider K's and counterplans out of hand. I also place a premium on signposting (anything that can help me keep as organized a flow as possible). Teams that fail to do this leave themselves at a real competitive disadvantage. Weigh impacts and construct a narrative around why I should vote for your side of the resolution. Finally: If your team is 2nd speaker, your rebuttal absolutely has to get back to your Case and counter the attacks made against it!

I value exceptional speaking and rhetorical excellence. I love speakers that can change my perception on issues, speakers who possess a passion for the topic and the activity. If you find a way to be unique and memorable, you will have a significant competitive advantage over 90% of your competition. While speaking skills are not as important as research and argumentation in helping me decide a round, they are often the difference maker in a close round. They are also somewhat of a lost art as PF begins to look and sound more like policy -- which is a shame.

I occasionally judge LD -- it also has been impacted by the spread/K revolution. I am looking for many of the same skills I'm looking for in PF. I appreciate debaters who help me weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions. Tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. I need help connecting philosophy to your contentions -- take the time to explain it to me in a clear and persuasive manner. Don't assume I have a working knowledge of these scholars, because I probably don't or, the few I may have heard or read about, have likely been forgotten.

On a scale of 1/10 for speed, I would consider myself about a 5 In policy debate and a 6-7 in PF/LD. On a scale of 1/10 for openness to alternative argumentation, I would be fairly low on a 1-10 scale. For policy -- quite open to topicality, less to counterplans, and a big hurdle to get my ballot if your case hinges on a series of Kritik arguments. For PF -- I consider myself a local/regional kind of guy. I am open to speed, not spread. I think disclosure theory is bogus (debate is a speech activity -- an argument hasn't been made until a speech is delivered). Don't run K's.

7/10 on speed, so long as your tags are clear, you're not using speed to obfuscate or misrepresent evidence, and voters are delivered intelligibly.

Policy: I am most comfortable judging a stock-issues oriented policy round. In particular, solvency arguments can be decisive. Generic DAs are fine, but a specific link to the 1AC will always be more compelling. K's are fair game as well, but I tend to want a more specific link for a K than a DA. Common Ks like the Cap K or Fem K are exceptions to this - those Ks are common enough that the Aff should be prepared to debate them regardless. I take a tabula rasa approach to any question surrounding the "role of the ballot," so if you win ROB in a particularly favorable fashion, it can set you up very nicely.

LD: I am extremely comfortable evaluating framework arguments. I prefer a Value/Criterion framing structure for LD, but won't complain if you do something different, so long as you meet the resolution (assuming it isn't a K aff - I tend to view Ks as Neg ground).

General: I expect a bit more than simply regurgitating pieces of evidence. Analysis isn't necessary for every piece of evidence, but if there is a string of cards building some sort of overarching argument, one or two sentences wrapping it up shouldn't be too much to ask. This is especially true for any rebuttals!!

There is almost no chance of me voting for an RVI, unless there is a case of in-round abuse.

"Slow Down" - me, on like 80% of ballots

For Public Forum: I'm a traditional, slower speaking public forum judge. I vote on the contention debate. Focus more on the logic and analysis argument. Don't use abusive definitions, and be rude or condescending at your own peril.

For Lincoln-Douglass: I focus on the value/criterion debate when voting, but if the debate is centered on contentions that is subject to adjust. Again, please don't speed read, and respect your opponent

Classic LD: Value, Criterion, Contentions

Rounds are evaluated with emphasis on the strongest logical arguments, sometimes supported with evidence.

I appreciate frameworks and burdens arguments that lay out the parameters of the debate - especially when you follow through with it, and it’s not just a 1x statement at the beginning of a speech never to be referenced again.

I enjoy well-thought out arguments, clash, organization, and arguments that continue to evolve throughout the round, not just repeated.

Spread and high speed are not tolerated. I will flow only what I can understand.

And while all of that might come off as a little grumpy, I assure you I am not. This is an enjoyable event, there are things that we can all learn from each other, and respect for your opponents, teammates and judges is a great starting point to have a good time, no matter the outcome. Have fun and learn something

I am new to speech and debate so I am learning!

I'm not the best at flowing yet so I appreciate it when teams speak at a pace that allows me to keep up!

To all debaters:

If you have any questions, let me know before the round begins.

Please be respectful in the round. Overly aggressive questioning, condescension, or insulting behavior will be commented on the ballot for your coaches to see. It may not affect the outcome of the round, but it's very important nonetheless.

Public Forum paradigm:

I am a PF coach and did PF in high school, so I am very familiar with this form of debate.

Beware running squirrel framework, I'm unlikely to be convinced unless it is well-justified or the opponent fails to point out its abusiveness/inaccuracies/etc.

For summary, I prefer line-by-line and then impacts at the bottom.

I like voters and impacts in the final speech - line-by-line is a bit rushed for 2 minutes.

Speed is okay - don't speak faster than I can understand you. If you are stumbling over words and not being concise that will not help you.

I am unfamiliar with Ks in PF. If you run a K, you have to explain it well.

In terms of what I look for in a win, if you cover all points on the flow and make a stronger case for/against the resolution that is a sure win. A stronger case for/against essentially means that taking all the evidence together that has been introduced AND extended throughout the round, one side is preferable to the other.

LD paradigm:

I did not do LD in high school but I am a philosophy major in college and have judged LD several times, so I understand discussion of value/criterion and philosophers. But, of course, make sure to explain the value/criterion well.

That being said, I would stick to more "traditional" LD arguments since I'm not as familiar with LD.

Value/criterion do matter more than contention-level, but I expect both to be covered effectively. It is especially important to win contention-level if you concede to your opponent's value/criterion.

Line-by-line argumentation works best for me.

Speed- same as PF.

I am a 13 year LD and Extemp coach and judge. A little PF when needed.

Just to get it out of the way, I will vote you down for speed. Typically, if I can't write it down, it doesn't exist in the round. Quality arguments over quantity. The one speech that I don't mind being a bit fast is the 1AR with only 4 minutes to get through is a lot. The rest shouldn't be rushed. Public Forum shouldn't be fast at all.

Extemp-- I am not overly concerned about your hand gestures or transitional movements. I do care that what you are saying is clear, clearly organized, has content- that is accurate, and has strong analysis/explanation to go with it. With being able to just Google whatever, I am going to really emphasize the analysis/explanation. Show me you are knowledgeable and have understanding.

LD-- Big on Framework debate in LD. If you aren't doing it and just focus on contention level, don't be mad that I agreed/disagreed with you based on a single, likely arbitrary point. Tie your points to framework to explain why your arguments are more consistent with the MORAL lens you have chosen for the debate.

PF-- Please don't just read and re-read cases. Work to get deeper into the arguments and give explanation for WHY a point is key.

At the end of the day, be civil, attentive, and really listen to each other. Being harsh, condescending, or dismissive is not helpful in winning rounds or being a good person. I don't mind being firm and holding your ground, just make it respectful.

Congress - Be professional, Engage. Keep the conversation moving forward, Listen to each other. I would rather hear a few really solid speeches instead of a lot of long winded mediocre ones. Have fun!!

Debate - Keep it simple, please don't talk too fast, I don't want to miss your point. Make your Contentions and Points very clear. Be kind. be professional. Have fun!

Extemp - I look for a clever intro, stating your question, 2 to 3 points to answer your question with resources (source/mo/yr), your conclusion tied back to your intro. I'd rather have it short and clean, than rambling to fill 7 minutes. Talk to me not at me. Have fun!

Interp - Talk to me not at me. I love crisp pantomime and to see your personal passion on your facial expressions behind your topic. Have fun!

PF - I have minimal PF judging/debating experience and no strong preferences. Don't go crazy fast.

LD - I did LD debate in South Dakota from 2009-2014 and judged a little during that time. I haven't done much judging since so if there's new lingo I'm probably not familiar. I'm comfortable. with traditional and K theory but still want it explained and applied well. Value/Criterion debate is important but won't win the round by itself - I don't care if your framework is the best unless you convince me that you've won under it. I'm probably a 4/10 on speed since I'm rusty. Open to basically any argument/strategy, just make sure you're ready to argue it.

I am a former LD Debater, State Champion and National Competitor many moons ago.

I have coached and judged Public Forum and LD for the past 8 years. The last seven as Head Coach.

I am a flow judge. Speed is fine but know if it doesn’t hit my flow it didn’t happen. I will be pretty clear in my face and writing if you are losing me.

Overview: I will not do the work for you.

I require extending arguments and vetting sources. IE remember the XX card (I won’t) with out a paraphrase and impact is meaningless and a throw away.

Signpost. If you must jump around the flow, lead me there. I require more than cross apply the arguments. Why?

Narrative: This is an absolute requirement for me. Why do I prefer your offering on the resolution? I do not vote on net zero arguments. IE my evidence is better, more recent, yada yada without context. Making an argument neutral is not winning an argument. Basically, impact the TURN. I am not a technicality judge as I do not feel that is in the true spirit of Debate.

Public Forum:

I do not believe there is a paradigm in this area of debate. I expect logical links and impacts. I am open to where a debater will take the argument. That said, public forum is not Policy light. Use solvency, plans, counter plans, K’s and DisAds at your own risk. There is a reason Policy rounds are 90 minutes and PF only 45. If you can solve for poverty in 4 minutes from a few sentences of some evidence, I will personally take you to the U.N.

I do embrace/expect scope and link chains as it is logical and necessary to weigh any debate.

LD:

I will look to Framework. If you can not access impacts in the V/C clash I cannot vote for you. End of story. You cannot win an LD round with out winning the V/C clash. It is the bedrock of why we are even talking about the subject in LD and not PF or Policy. You have a unique obligation of ought or should while upholding a link to the real world.

PF:

I will honestly follow the flow more than anything else. I will be listening to the evidence, and if a team is caught twisting or clipping evidence I will vote down on that. I also enjoy a round that is fast and arguments that are assertive but I will not tolerate abusive and straight mean behavior. This is an event for everyone, and I don't tolerate when people are forced out of the event.

LD:

I am a rather traditional judge. My main voter is almost always the value and vc clash. I prefer argumentation that is rooted in philosophy and morals, but I understand when we need to have some practical and evidence clash. Be polite but make your points.

CX:

I have both done and judged CX in the past. I can flow speed and don't mind theory in the round. Although I am still a rather traditional judge. I do not appreciate rude behavior in the round. You can be assertive in making the points, but it is still about the educational discourse and teams that abuse that will be knocked down on the flow.

Lincoln-Douglas:

Major Issues:
The debaters are responsible for identifying, defining, and establishing the key issues in the round. I will vote on whichever is the strongest-argued, and while that does sometimes come from a large spread of evidence, it is the interpretation and management of those issues that ought to determine which side outweighs the other.

For example: if both sides agree to debate which of them is more just, that refines the debate to a discussion of that metric. Each can determine how they get to "more" in their own way, but that can happen along a multitude of approaches as magnitude and volume are not the same thing. Debaters should read the round attentively and be prepared to follow the arguments, gaining offense along the way while not leaving arguments available for opponent' extensions.

Plan Text, Solvency or Kritik:
I'll hear just about any argument, but if the debater cannot tell me why that is the better option for framework arguments, I'll default to value and criteria. Clash should be clean and accurately reflect the burdens that each debater accepts after the first two speeches.

Speaker points:
30: your round is suitable for a tournament final
29: your round is suitable for a tournament semifinal
28-27: your round is suitable for a winning record

My background:
I am a 10th and 12th grade English and composition teacher with a literature, rhetoric, and philosophy background. I have served as an LD coach from 2012-2016 and 2020-2021 and am very experienced with both the activity and its myriad topics.

Speed

Rapid conversational

I prefer quality arguments over quantity of arguments. Debate is educational; if your strategy is to spread the other team in the rebuttal, that doesn't seem like you are trying to promote education. Being able to talk faster does not equate to being a better debater. That being said, I am not unreasonable; if you have to speak faster in the summaries to cover everything the other team put out, that is acceptable. If you are going to use speed as part of a strategy, I would rather you use the extra time you save to go more in-depth on fewer arguments rather than creating more, not as well-fleshed-out arguments.

Theory/Kritik

I am a teacher, and debate is for education. I am predisposed to believe that debating issues that are intentionally (not just a loose link to the resolution or a bad interpretation of a definition) outside of the resolution can harm the fairness of the debate and the opponent's education. That said, I welcome you to use your speech time to advocate for any issues you believe in and educate the people in the round; I am just not likely to give you the ballot.

Framework

If two competing frameworks offer substantially different views of the round, I will evaluate it based on whichever team persuades me to use their framing. So, yes, I will vote on a framework and mentally adopt that framing to evaluate the impacts of the round. Strategically, it would be best to tell me how you win under both frameworks if you are unsure which framework is more persuasive to me. If the framing is fairly similar, I would hope the debaters would recognize that sooner rather than later and mutually agree so there is more time to focus on the core issues of the topic.

Tips

(I don't expect you to follow this strictly. You debate how you feel best. These are just the styles I am more likely to understand, appreciate, and ultimately vote for because it is how I teach my students. You utilize this information however you like.)

I like to flow as much as I possibly can. So, if I am not writing anything down during your speeches, you are either not being clear in your argumentation or have spent too much time covering the point; it is best to move on. Because I like to keep a detailed flow, I also appreciate a debater who is well organized in their signposting. Also, I have found debaters more successful when they can cross-apply evidence or arguments from their own contentions to attack the opponent's case. It seems to make things more organized because less evidence is being brought in, and thus, the debate becomes more focused on the quality of the argumentation.

When I am thinking, I often make a very grumpy-looking face. Don’t think I disagree with what you are saying because of this.

In public forum, I believe that most summary speeches drop excessive amounts of arguments against their case. If you can defend your case and respond to what the other team said in the previous speeches, you are much more likely to win. I want a line-by-line of both cases in the summary speech if you can. On the same note, if the other team does drop critical arguments on the case, these are easy wins in my book; please bring them up.

You should select two or three main voting issues for the final focus. The speech's last 15-20 seconds should be spent giving me impact calc and telling me what the Pro world vs. the Con world looks like. I also don't mind an overview at the top if that suits you.

Roadmaps are off the clock for me.

I will evaluate the evidence if you ask me to call for the evidence. But, if the evidence does not change my decision, I may not call for it.

Please don't try to avoid giving the other team evidence by saying your partner will do it after the cross. Evidence transparency is a huge part of the debate. Try to be as upfront as possible.

I can tell the difference between someone who is confident and standing their ground and someone who uses rudeness to make it look like they know more than they do. If being rude is part of your pathos as a debater, I don't think you're doing it right.

As a general observation, conceding a few arguments that might legitimately be untrue puts you in a better position to win than trying to defend every aspect and piece of evidence of your case. The energy it takes to defend legitimately untrue arguments is not worth the time you potentially lose to develop other, more substantial arguments. Just pick and choose wisely.

Policy-I- I have debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Policymaker.

LD- I have not debated it before. I do not judge it often. I do not coach it. Most likely, I am not familiar with the topic. Good luck.

Policy:

I'm okay with any kind of argument from Ks to Theory to DAs, I'm not fussy. Though I do have a history of not finding Topicality arguments particularly compelling unless they're well-ran and the case really is untopical.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

I'll weigh the round however you tell/convince me to, but my default is just standard Utilitarian, and caring about real, in-round abuse over the hypothetical worlds of Aff and Neg.

LD:

I care about the Value and Criterion debate, and I think you should too. I'm going to weigh the round however you convince me to weigh the round, and this can be a huge strategic advantage to whoever wins this point.

I'm good with speed. I think it's strategic for you to make the tags a bit clearer or slower, but do what you will.

Public Forum:

I'm paying a lot of attention to the flow and to the warrants of the arguments; I'm not a "speaking skills" style judge. (Unless you're rude or something, but that's a different issue). If you're using framework and bring it up in your final speech, make sure you explain why it gets you an advantage or why it's relevant.

I'm an assistant interp coach for the Huron Speech and Debate team. My primary area of experience is in the interps and speech after having competed for Huron in the past. I am comfortable judging any speech round, and I most closely look at the physicality of a piece (how are you using body language, facial/vocal expression, pops, etc. to promote the piece).

I have some experience with Public Forum debate and am able to judge it, but I cannot stand debaters that speak at mach speed. It is difficult for me to follow flow when information is presented so fast that the words themselves blend together. I will flow to the best of my ability during the round, but don't expect me to catch everything if you speak like a Policy debater.

Updated 1-2024

Please feel free to include me on any email chains or share evidence that you want reviewed via Eric@dakotahomestead.com

Background

I am a former policy debater who has coached and judged all forms of debate and speech since 2005. I am a volunteer assistant coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls with my focus shifting to coaching Public Forum debate as of 2020-2021. In my day-job, I am an attorney and the president of an insurance holding company that oversees a variety of real estate focused businesses throughout South Dakota.

Public Forum

Similar to Policy and LD, I keep a rigorous flow throughout the round, including crossfire and overviews. Rate of delivery is not an issue for me as long as you are relatively clear and understandable. I evaluate Public Forum as a Tabula Rasa judge and consider the arguments focused on by each side in the Final Focus to be the main arguments to evaluate in the round. Absent framing or a weighing mechanism proposed by either side, I default to a policy making analysis from the perspective of the actor in the resolution. Tell me why you should win based on the arguments on the flow from the round and how to evaluate them. Winning on individual arguments without guidance as to why that argument matters in the context of the resolution is a common problem I see. I prefer clash between teams on key issues compared to each side repeating their own claims without addressing the other team's.

While I primarily coach Public Forum and am familiar with the evidence and arguments on the current topic, do not assume that all participants in the round are and debate accordingly. On most judge panels, you should focus on the paradigms and preferences of the other judges as I will go along for the ride rather than advancing an argument or rate of delivery that I find acceptable at the potential expense of the round. With that said, just like with Policy and LD, I believe that the round is up to the debaters, so tell me why something matters and why you win, and I will evaluate it accordingly.

Lincoln Douglas

Prior South Dakota State Debate Lincoln Douglas Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your Lincoln-Douglas judging experience and preferences.

1. Your experience with Lincoln-Douglas debate: (Mark “X” on all that apply)

X A. Coach of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

B. Former Lincoln-Douglas Debate Coach

C. Former Lincoln-Douglas Competitor

X D. Former collegiate and/or high school policy debater

X E. Frequently judge Lincoln-Douglas debate

X F. Coach of Policy Debate

X G. Coach of Individual Events

H. No Lincoln-Douglas Debate Experience

2. I have judged 18 years of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

3. I have judged: (circle or highlight one)

Typically between 15 and 30rounds of L-D by the end of the season

4. Indicate your attitudes concerning the following typical L-D practices:

A. RATE OF DELIVERY (circle/highlight your answers)

No preference | Slow, conversational style | Typical conversational speed | Rapid conversational style

1. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? Yes No

2. Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? Yes No

B. HOW IMPORTANT IS THE CRITERION IN MAKING YOUR DECISION? (circle/highlight one)

1. It is the primary means by which I make my decision.

2. It is a major factor in my evaluation. (unless advocated otherwise during the round)

3. It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

4. It rarely informs my decision.

Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes No

C. REBUTTALS AND CRYSTALLIZATION (circle/highlight one of the answers for each question)

1. Final rebuttals should include: a) voting issues b) line-by-line analysis c) both (I default and usually prefer voting issues, but it is your round so you tell me what you think is important in determining a winner)

2. Voting issues should be given:

a) as the student moves down the flow b) at the end of the final speech c) either is acceptable.

3. Voting issues are: a) absolutely necessary b) not necessary (strongly preferred but not required).

4. The use of jargon or technical language (“extend,” “cross-apply,” “turn,” etc) during rebuttals is:

a) acceptable b) unacceptable c) should be kept to a minimum.

D. How Do You Decide The Winner Of The Round? (circle/highlight the best answer)

1. I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments.

2. I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round.

3. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round.

4. I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall.

E. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round?

(Circle/highlight your preference)

Not necessary----------Sometimes necessary----------Always necessary

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

F. Circle/highlight the option that best describes your personal note-taking during the round.

1. I do not take notes.

2. I only outline the important arguments of each debater’s case.

3. I write down the key arguments throughout the round.

4. I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

5. I keep a rigorous flow.

Policy Debate

2017 South Dakota State Debate Policy Judge Questionnaire

Name Eric Hanson

In order to assist the debaters whom you will judge in adapting to the particular audience that you provide as a judge, please indicate your policy debate judging experience and preferences.

Your experience with policy debate (Mark all that apply with “X”):

X A. Coach of a policy debate team

______ B. Former policy debate coach

C. Policy debater in college (Where? )

X D. Policy debater in high school

X E. Frequently judge policy debate

______ F. Occasionally judge policy debate

Which of the following best describes your approach to judging policy debate?

A. Speaking Skill D. Hypothesis Tester

B. Stock Issues E. Games Player

C. Policymaker X F. Tabula Rasa

Circle (or highlight) your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

RATE OF DELIVERY (X No Preference)

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very Rapid

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS (X No Preference)

A few well-developed arguments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments

the better

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive issues

most important most important

TOPICALITY – I am willing to vote on topicality:

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely vote on topicality

COUNTERPLANS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

OPTIONAL: If you feel the need to clarify (or add to) your responses to items 3-12, write those comments LEGIBLY on a separate sheet of paper.

Eric Hanson’s Additional Comments

I truly believe that each round is the debaters to do with what they want. Evan so, here are my preferences and some common criticisms I have for teams:

When running theory and Kritik’s, just prove to me you understand them and how they apply in this round. Do not just read a shell that someone else has prepared without understanding the underlying criticism that is being levied.

Please write out Counter Plan and Perm text.

I have a very expansive view on Topicality. I will listen to and vote on in round abuse, potential abuse, and competing interpretations. That does not mean that I vote on potential abuse or competing interpretations just because you say those words. You must actual prove to me that your definition is the best one for debating the resolution or that the other team’s is just so flawed and abusive that it cannot stand.

When extending warrants, it is preferable to say more than just “Extend my partners warrants.” Take the extra few seconds to actually state the warrant of the argument.

When considering impact calculus, I give weight to all three parts (timeframe, probability, and magnitude). If a team tells me to give little weight to a massive DA impact because the probability is so small, that will factor into my evaluation.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

As a Tabula Rasa judge, I really appreciate it when the 2NR / 2AR actually explain why the win the round and in what framework / paradigm I am supposed to view the round when evaluating.

You probably do not want me to guess at how you wanted me to evaluate the round.

This means doing more than just saying “Impact Calc. 1. We win timeframe. 2. We are more probable. 3. We have bigger impacts.”

Traditional judge. Many years of experience, but not a fan of speed or kritiks. Approaches rounds as a policymaker unless persuaded otherwise. Speaking skills are important and the flow is important. In Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum rounds, Rhetorical skills and audience communication skills will weight heavily with me. I take old-school, in-depth PAPER notes. Argue “man in the street” to me.

LD: I try to lean more to a traditional LD judge style. The framework debate is important and I will always appreciate debaters who connect their contention level arguments back to the Value & Criterion. Though my background is in policy, so I will keep a flow and value that in a round. Maintaining focus on the resolution is important as well. I appreciate debaters who weigh out their arguments and give me clear reasons to vote one way or another.

In general I'm fine with speed and can follow arguments as long as clarity is maintained. That being said, my vote never just goes to who has the most arguments. In LD especially, I prefer well thought out and well weighed arguments versus a flood of arguments that may or may not hold merit.

At the core, I don't see a judge as someone who should intervene in the round. This is the debaters space to utilize their own strategies and argumentation. If you can explain an argument and give me reason to believe it matters in the round I will vote for it.

PF: Rounds most frequently come down to how well arguments are weighed out/impact calc for me. If you have framework or resolutional analysis you should be connecting your arguments back to it.

I have no problem following jargon or more advanced debate discussion, but I don't feel like Public Forum debate should devolve into a policy debate round in half the time.

Evidence is important in public forum debate and I do consider that when making decisions. If you are going to criticize your opponents evidence or call out any abuse, I want to see a reason behind it and why I should consider it in my decision making. Just saying "we post date" or "their sources are faulty" won't carry much weight unless you actually show me why it matters

In an LD round I tend to vote for the side with the most substantive arguments as opposed to the side who has pushed to most arguments through.

In terms of speed, fast conversational is fine but nothing faster.

- dhwanikharel1@gmail.com

-My first priority is ensuring that debate is an inclusive activity. Provide trigger warnings if what you are running is triggering. Use common sense. Racist, sexist, homophobic cases.. just don't run them

- avoid circular framework debate, i.e "my framework is a pre-req to their framework." "no, MY framework is a pre-req to THEIRS."

-I debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for Brookings High School in South Dakota. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.

- I hate "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments

- LIMIT jargon.

- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar with the literature so you'll have to explain it well.

- Not a fan of pointless theory. Please don't run theory unless there is actual abuse.

-The round is yours, do what you like but just be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.

- Don't use pointless buzzwords if what your saying has no substance. I can tell when you're not saying anything at all but rather just throwing words out there for the sake of saying them

In debate, I look for critically thought out arguments that make sense resolutionally. Answer the question-provide the plan. In old school talk-I am a stock issues/communicator judge for policy debate. Much of that would pose true for Public Forum.

I do not like evidence spew for the sake of spreading opponents out of the round. I can track with moderate speed, but I want to hear some analysis of the argument and subsequent rebuttal. If I have stopped typing on the flow-or writing on my flow pad, I can't judge it. Speed does not win the day for me-signposting is appreciated.

LD-I want to see clear value/criterion debate-when rounds tend toward the policy, I tend to tune out. I was a die-hard LDer who was trained to answer the resolution, provide clear value clash, and wrestle with the pragmatic solutions...if there are any. I like to see how the students can creatively tackle the same resolution-so a less common tactic is cool with me- Again, speed is not my game-if I can't understand you-it doesn't make it one the flow and is not judged.

I love to hear the conversations that come out of really good rounds where there is a clear exchange of ideas and a definite clash-that, to me, is where the most authentic learning takes place! Talk pretty and have fun!!!!

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

I competed for 4 years in speech and debate in Nebraska (I participated in Policy and PF primarily, with some Extemp). I am now the head debate coach at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. I was primarily a K debater and have experience with performance affs, however, I adapted to traditional debate circuits in SD, so if you have a K you have been waiting to pull out, now is your time. Using K's as timesucks, however, is a huge pet peeve of mine. If you are running a K, I assume you care about the issue at hand and not just trying to be performative.

-I'm more than willing to listen to any argument you are willing to make, as long as it's done fairly. I love to see creativity in argument and believe that such types of thinking are fundamental to society, so if you want to run something a bit out there, I will hear you out. However, if it's clear that you are primarily using these types of arguments to confuse your opponent, I will automatically drop speaker points.

-I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate! I cannot stress this enough.

-I will be paying attention to what is said, but if there's something you think was said that is important to winning the round, I would mention it in a subsequent speech.

-If your opponents don't attack a point of yours, make sure you extend that in either summary or final focus (if not both) if you want me to consider it. In LD, it has to make it into your rebuttals.

- Weigh!!! As a former debater, I know how hard this can be to do well. Always remember that what makes sense to you and what you see as obvious may not be how others (including your judge) see things! Use your rebuttals and especially your final focus to really paint me a clear picture of why you won the round. I love voters. I'm typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot.

-Be polite to each other and have fun! Also, I have found I am very expressive in round, so if something does not make sense or I am confused, you will be able to tell. This usually means I need you to really sell me on the link story.

-IF YOU ARE GOING TO CALL FOR CARDS, KEEP SPEECHES GOING UNLESS YOU ARE USING PREP TIME. There is no reason we should be stopping rounds after just 1 constructive speech to wait for 5 cards. If you are waiting on evidence sharing, your partner can still read case while you wait. I don't mind short stops to glance at a card, however, I will dock speaks if I have to wait too long because you abuse time. Too many people are doing this, essentially creating a second untimed prep time for their team.

If you all have any specific questions this didn't cover or want any other additional information about my judging I encourage you to ask me before the round! :)

Email: mercado.angelicaarely@gmail.com

If you prove to me that you're winning on the flow, then I'll vote for you. Framework is important if it's carried throughout the round and given sufficient justification. I like when teams have clash on big points of contention in the round. Don't read so fast that it becomes a detriment to your ability to articulate your words. Respect each other, please.

I am a former South Dakota debater who competed in PFo, oratory, and interp. I’m now the head debate coach at Mitchell High School. I’m a traditional Public Forumer; this event was created for lay judges and heavy Public Forum jargon should be left to the side.

- This isn’t policy. Slow down and give me a quality delivery for higher speaks. Throwing delivery by the wayside for a fast and robotic presentation is a massive mistake so many debaters commit. I’m an Aristotle girlie - persuade me with your ethos, logos, and pathos!

- I'll be closely following the arguments presented, and if you believe there's a pivotal point crucial for winning the round, please ensure to address it in one of your subsequent speeches.

- Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card.

- Direct quotes > Paraphrasing. I won't immediately downvote you for paraphrasing, but if your debate opponent can provide a compelling reason, I might reconsider. The same principle applies to the misuse of evidence. If your opponent requests a card citation, and it contradicts your argument or the way you presented it, it could be deemed abusive, potentially leading to a loss in the round.

- Creativity in arguments is encouraged, as long as you have the link chain to back it up. Using abusively creative arguments is not my favorite (ie., student loan debt forgiveness will lead to nuclear war.)

- Weighing metrics are SO IMPORTANT! Even if it seems obvious to you, lay it all out for me so you ensure it gets weighed how you see fit.

- Summaries should not be utilized as second rebuttals; use your summary for voters and to tell me why I’m preferring you on each flowed contention.

- Be assertive, not aggressive! I’m such a firm believer of “If you have to be mean to get your point across, you’re a bad debater.” Aggressiveness will cost you speaker points.

- I have come to despise off-the-clock roadmaps and asking if every individual in the round is ready; you can begin and we’ll catch up.

- Telling me what I’m going to be voting is such a pet peeve of mine. Tell me what to weigh, what to prefer, what to analyze, what to flow through - do NOT tell me what I’m going to vote. :)

I competed in debate/IEs throughout high school and college. I'm typically a flow judge so tell me what to write down and what to flow through. Additionally, I am a big proponent of being nice in rounds. A good debate win happens from a clean round where everyone was respectful. Clash is appreciated but with respect.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

I debated varsity public forum for three years and policy for one year at Aberdeen Central in Aberdeen, South Dakota. I'm currently a freshman at South Dakota State University studying Political Science. My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.

As far as judging goes, I'm pretty straight forward. I strongly dislike technical jargon often used by circuit debaters; I find it to be too fluffy and used as a tool to confuse other team. With that being said, you can use technical jargon, but do so in a way that isn't to the detriment of the other team and observers in the round. Everyone needs to understand your arguments/speeches. Along the same lines, I enjoy watching debate with good clash and argument. However, there is a line between being assertive and being downright pushy and rude. I will dock speaks if you cross that line.

With respect to the actual public forum debate round, I do like a certain format.

Constructive: I don't love definitions but I can stand them if they are short. Framework is very helpful and appreciated. Also, I like clarity with specific contentions and taglines. For example, "Contention 1 is ......, Contention 2 is ......, etc." Your case should be clear with warrants and impacts. If your case is hard to understand and I have to work at finding the warrants and impacts, you're unlikely to get my vote.

Rebuttal: I like a road map so please use one. When attacking an opponents case, do so specifically. For example say, "On my opponents 1st Contention of...., we have x number of responses." I also like when debaters can cross apply arguments from their own case on the rebuttal.

Summary: Do not over complicate the summary. Boil down the bigger picture argument(s) you and your partner are making. Tell me why your team has been winning thus far in the round. A road map is appreciated but not mandatory.

Final Focus: In two or three points, tell me why you've won the round. Here again, I like to hear warrants and impacts to what your argument is. DO NOT BRING UP DROPPED ARGUMENTS- at this point, I will not weigh them.

Evidence: If you'd like to call for opponents evidence and look over it, I will not run prep (unless you're looking at it forever).

Others: Please do not try and run things under absurd theories, counter plans, etc. I'm not going to listen.

If there is ANYTHING that is unclear or you have questions, please feel free to ask!

Policy

I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge.

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round.

Public Forum

Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Speed- Speak at a rate that is easy to understand.

No flexible prep time- use the designated time allotted.

State impacts clearly, when making claims of fact support with evidence, avoid Fiat cases- looking for clash.

I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school. One of the biggest things a debater should do in order to win is adapt to judge preferences... Here are mine,

1) I’m a big framework guy, does that mean if all you win is framework will you win the round? Absolutely not. If you don’t have a framework at the end of the round though it’s going to be difficult to win my vote. I’m a big fan of framework because it makes every contention level argument easier to weigh. FW turns are one of my favorite arguments and if done right will do a lot towards gaining my ballot

2) On the contention level I need sign posting and you need to directly address sub points not just contention headings.... Also, like framework I love a good turn on the contention level and I also love direct clash of arguments from both cases. My biggest advice is to be articulate and concise on the contention level.

3) I’m a fan of faster paced debates. Does this mean spread your opponent out of the water..... nope. I can handle most speeds but don’t get out of hand, slow down on tags, explanations, and transitions.

4) If you’re debating in South Dakota with me in the back of the room... Avoid policy arguments plz :)

5) Finally, I need to see respectfulness during the debate. Yes you can still be savage in cross-x but that doesn’t mean be rude.... There’s a difference. If you ever call your opponent dumb or stupid you will lose the round.

6) Finally, if you ever see me make facial expressions during a round don’t get nervous. After debating for so many years you learn it’s hard to control them sometimes. Odds are you’re doing just fine :)

Hopefully this helps y’all out, rock on ballers!

I look for solid arguments, but weigh heavily on common sense and speaking skills as well. If you leave a good contention unblocked, it will count against you. I can handle moderate speeds if you speak clearly and fluently. I try to vote on the flow, but if it's a mess or I can't understand you, I can't do that.

Be polite. If it is a close round, you will make my decision easy by being disrespectful to your opponents. If the disrespectful behavior is egregious, I may vote you down regardless of your arguments. This activity is about civil discourse, not insults.

In General:

Liberal Policymaker. Feel free to go fast - But be sure I can understand you. Convince me as to why your standing is the most advantageous to vote for in the round. This applies for all formats of debate. I like clash, I like argumentation, I like the feeling of competitiveness within the round.

Also: Please don't forget to roadmap/signpost. Tell me where you're arguments are going and how I should flow them. The less I have to guess and more you guide me, the better chance of me not missing any other crucial arguments. Remember: You're convincing me why your position is the best in the round, so tell me what arguments of your opponents you're refuting/debating at the time.

Specifically to LD:

Same on speed; Show me why you garner the "highest moral standing" in the round via the Value and Criterion in the round. Value is what you're striving for in the round -- The Criterion is the way of measuring said Value.

The big thing to keep in mind is -- Tell me why and how you should win within the context of the debate at hand with the arguments at hand. Regardless of outside knowledge/experiences/etc, if you garner, and show me how you do, the most advantage (or, conversely if you're neg, showing me why the status quo/your position is the most advantageous in the context of the round) you'll get my vote.

And please. No new in the Rebuttals...

LD Paradigm:

-I briefly debated traditional, Lincoln Douglas debate for OG. I am open to either progressive or traditional debate.

- I dislike "this is LD debate so they can't run this" arguments

- please limit your jargon or buzzwords, especially if you don't know what they mean or how to use them.

- I enjoy listening to kritiks, but I'm not super familiar so please explain it well.

-be aware that I may not be able to completely follow you if you go crazy with spreading/jargon.

PF Paradigm:

-please don't run a circular framework debate the whole time, i.e. "my framework is a pre-q to theirs". Focus on the contentions and analysis :)

-I love voters and impacts in the final speech

-Speed is okay, but not "policy fast."

PF Clash and complete citations on the initial read. If you don't present , I will not weigh in the round.

All voting issues, drops and evidence challenges need to be called by competitors. I will not insert myself unless egregious violations occur. I will also occasionally vote for the most passionate debater, the debater who shows the greatest desire to win. CX wins debates.

LD Clash and application. I rarely vote on criteria, but often on HV.

CX is the highlight of the debate, own it.

My 1st year judging any type of Debate was 1962 so it is rare when I am not the "old guy" on the panel. When I first started judging, there was only one type of Debate, Policy. I have always tried to stay current with the various "new types of Debate" and regularly follow the various discussions published by NSDA and the various HANDBOOK PUBLISHING COMPANIES and I consider myself to have a good knowledge of the possible approaches that I may encounter in my assigned rounds.

I competed in Public Forum Debate and International Extemp

Oral interpretation

I like the idea of different characters. I like very developed voices and pitch for each character. I like being walked through a story. I vote highest on emotion showed in character.

Extemporaneous Speaking

You will score higher if your points are structured, well timed and impacted out to the answer of your question. Tie your intro to your conclusion. I like the use of evidence to answer your argumentation.

Public Forum

I vote really hard on impact calc and good weighing. The way to get speaker points with me is to read case exceptionally well and have a structured summary with voters. Have a structured, numbered, and signposted rebuttal. Have a final focus that writes my ballot for me.

Lincoln Douglas

Truth over Tech

I view LD with a traditional lens.

I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.

Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. I appreciate common sense, professionalism, and good grammar!

Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.

LD--I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, and clarity of thought. Please don't spend the entire round debating value/criterion/framework or philosophy; your contentions count too!

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.  

Background:

Extemp Speaker (among other IE dabbling) and Policy Debater in high school, long enough ago to not really matter as an influence on my judging (especially considering the absence of policy debate in South Dakota, where I almost exclusively judge). Have judged all styles of debate (Policy, L/D, Public Forum) pretty consistently since 2004. I judge less frequently in recent years, but still enough tournaments/rounds to be versant in the topics and up-to-date on most argumentation trends. Tend to judge more in the later portion of the year.

Overall:

Debate and Individual Events are all about communication, so if you aren't speaking to your panel with the intent of communicating an idea/narrative to us (i.e., if you're speaking too quickly to reasonably follow you or if you're trying primarily to convince us you're charming or if your delivery is so laden with jargoned signposting that I need a decoder ring), you aren't achieving the prime purpose of the activity.

Each person in the room deserves respect that goes beyond perfunctory "Judges ready? Oppenent ready? Partner ready?" forumlas. Work to convey that respect by paying attention to the other speakers in the round, using cross examination for questions rather than soliloquoys on your own stances, and interacting with your judges like we're people rather than combination timers/transcription machines with facial expressions.

L/D:

I prefer debates that provide value clash over ones that dwell more in the contention debate and what feels like impact calculus. That said, if the debaters choose to move toward a more pragmatic measurement of the round, I can be comfortable weighing things from a more utilitarian perspective.

The debaters I find most convincing are those who craft a really great 'closing argument.' Don't think of "voters" as throw-away bullet points that you want the judge to write on their flow and copy verbatim in their Reason For Decision; use that phase of the round to boil down the most important considerations into a summation that compels us to see the round your way.

Public Forum:

I appreciate teams who can keep the "big picture" of the resolution itself at the heart of the debate. Getting too hung up in the "we-win-this-point-they-lose-that-point" recitation makes the clash the main show instead of making the affirmation or negation of the resolution the main show.

Exceptional debate comes from teams that can build and apply their argument from one phase of the round to the next. I stay the most engaged with the details of the round when debaters develop, rather than repeat or re-assert, their arguments.

Public Forum/LD

My paradigm is fairly simple for any form of debate. Ultimately, I am looking for substantive issues to be resolved at the end of the round.

I believe that arguments need to be explained in the process of presentation. Please do not assume that I will do the work for you. Explain why your evidence supports your claims and why your argument is better or more important than your opponent's arguments.

If you have a particular way you want me to view the round, please make sure that you explain so everyone in the round understands the expectation (and make sure you meet the expectation as well). If that particular lens is important to the round, you should also be framing the round in that way the entire time (not just in your first and last speech).

While I don't have any predisposition to style or speed or structure or any specific arguments necessarily, I do prefer respectful debate where both sides are working to resolve the issues.

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have.

Regarding LD, I judge based on clash. I want to see the applicability of moral theory in modern-day circumstances. I expect to see evidence used to support arguments. I rigorously flow debates and pay close attention during cx. I do judge on criterion, but it must be supported by the most convincing argument.

Experience: I competed in Public Forum for 6 years in North Dakota and am a past state champion in this event and a national qualification. Additionally, I competed on the National Circuit sparingly for 4 years. I competed in Extemp for 5 years in North Dakota/South Dakota and competed in International Extemp at the national tournament for 3 years. Lastly, I competed in Congress for 3 years but only at the local level (ND).

Judging PF: I'm looking for a good, clean round of debate. Be polite, act with class, and don't lose your cool. The team that extends the most impacts of their own and turns, delinks, disproves, or indicts the other teams will win the round 99 times out of 100 for me. I can keep up with nearly any speed but if you are going to talk fast please be experienced enough to enunciate. Truth is king, I don't believe tech should exist. Solvency won't win you the round. I strongly believe that solvency doesn't have a place in Public Forum because it is impossible to solve. If you can solve for poverty, war, climate change, etc. in a 45-minute round, I will personally fly you to the UN and you can go solve it. Extend the impacts, use logic and sources to disprove, persuade me. OFF THE CLOCK ROAD MAPS DONT EXIST. IF YOU START TALKING I START THE TIMER. I don't flow crossfire so if you want to garner offense from it, bring it up in a speech.

Judging LD: I have much less experience in LD however I still know what the basis of the event is. I am still looking for a clean round here too. Solvency doesn't exist in this event either. There's a reason a policy round is 90 minutes long. You cannot solve a moral/ethical issue with real-world implications in your 6-minute speech in a 45-minute debate round. Impacting is still king here. Sources are not as important but the clearer you pull them through the flow the more offense you have the opportunity to gain. I NEED a Value/Criterion Clash. Whoever wins this usually wins my ballot but can be swayed if both sides concede to the same V/C or if one side better upholds both V/C without a clear winner on the clash itself.

Judging Speech: If you're in a more rigid event, i.e. either extemp, inform, oratory, etc. keeping it light or incorporating comedic relief is great. Keeps the judge happy and engaged. Other events I take at face value.

Good luck.

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.

LD

I am in my third season of judging LD, so I am still learning. I will admit that I am leaning on my Public Forum experience to a degree during the learning process. I have so far developed two rules about judging LD:

1.) Defend your value statement, especially if your opponent attacks it. If your opponent is able to negate your value statement, your case goes away and it becomes extremely difficult to win at that point.

2.) If you and your opponent agree upon or merge your value statements and your criterion, then to me it becomes a PF round.

PUBLIC FORUM - READ TO THE END FOR AN UPDATE ON THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC.

Introduction

The best thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it, and the worst thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it. If you don't read this before a round, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DAYS OF ONLINE DEBATE, don't complain to your coach about what is said on my ballot after you lose.

How I vote/Framework

You can present your framework if you want, but I really don't pay any attention to it, especially with resolutions that are Yes/No. I am more interested in hearing the contents of your case, and I don't start flowing until I hear you say "Contention 1". I vote based on the cases, their contents, the attacks made on the cases and the responses to those attacks. Whoever has the majority of their case left standing at the end of the round wins. I value evidence over opinion, but not exclusively so. If you are presenting a morality-based case, you do so at your peril. It is my opinion that morality arguments are best done in LD. If you present a morality-based case AND you tell me I'm immoral if I vote you down, you are officially done at that point (it's happened, that's why it's included).

Argumentation
First and foremost, I expect professional conduct during the entirety of the round. While I haven’t yet decided a round based on arrogance, rudeness or condescension, I also have no qualms awarding a low-point win if the tournament rules allow.

Case speakers – I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea of what has to be proven by whom during a debate round, especially toward the end of a topic period. Therefore, I don’t want to hear the Webster definition of 3 or 4 of the words in the resolution unless your definition differs from your opponent's. You may present framework if you want, but refer to the above as to how I treat it. As stated above in "How I vote", I very rarely start flowing until I hear "Our first contention is...…"

Rebuttal speakers – I value your responses to your opponent’s case more than I do getting back to your own, especially if all you’re doing is re-reading it. In addition, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE ATTACKING YOUR OPPONENT'S CASE OR ARE SUPPLEMENTING YOUR OWN WITH WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING. If you don't, it doesn't get flowed, and what doesn't get flowed doesn't get judged. I also like rebuttal speakers who are skilled enough to be able to attack their opponent’s rebuttal if you are speaking second. Finally, be very careful if you're attacking your opponent's case with points from your own. If your attack point gets damaged or negated, the opponents points you attacked will more than likely pull through intact.

Crossfire – It is very difficult to win a round during crossfire, but it is very easy to lose a round during crossfire. I’ll let you interpret that however you want. I consider CX to be for my benefit, not yours. I'm not real crazy about interruptions or talking over one another. Let your opponent finish an answer before you ask a follow-up question. I do reserve the right (and I have done it) to cut off a CX round if all you're doing is continuing the debate rather than doing Q&A. My rule at the buzzer - an answer may finish, a question may not.

Summary - The third minute of summary that was added last year has been interesting in how teams have approached it. I will say this: If you are speaking first, you can go back and attack your opponent's rebuttal, but don't spend more than 90-seconds on it. If you spend the entire time in attack, I'm going to assume you think you're losing. You should be introducing voters and giving me your introductory analysis of how the round is going.

Final Focus – You should be telling me why you won the round. I do not object if you figuratively take me by the hand and walk me through your analysis of how the round went. If you spend more than half your time continuing to attack your opponent's case, I will again assume that you're not confident about the success of your own.

Delivery
As far as speed goes, this is not policy. While I do flow with a spreadsheet on a laptop, there are even speeds that I can’t follow. If you see me put my hands behind my head, you are talking too fast, and what does not get flowed does not get judged. Please slow down a notch when presenting main points and sub points.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC - If you are going to run Climate Change on the Pro, or Remittances on the Con, you had better be able to connect it back to the resolution. If you don't, and your opponent argues that either of these points are non-resolutional, I will agree with them.

Questions? Feel free to send an email to either wilsonbl@sio.midco.net or blaine@ucctcm.org

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.