New Jersey District Tournament
2021 — NJ/US
LD Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi! I’m really excited to be your judge today!
A few notes:
1. Sign posting is an absolute must. If I cannot follow you, that’s a problem.
2. No spreading, this isn’t policy debate.
3. I will reward you for being clear and impacting all of your claims. Tell me why this argument matters!
4. Be civil! I will give you low speaks if you are rude and talk over the top of one another.
5. Don’t hog the cross time! You should all have the opportunity to ask and answer questions.
Hi! I have judged over 70 rounds of debate this season alone, & am familiar with whichever topic you give me. I did speech in high school & help with debate now. I am familiar with most frameworks but most comfortable with Kant & Util, more Util than anything else. I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point if both debaters speak at a conversational pace. It is anti-educational. I am a flow judge, but I attach a stipulation of your argument has to be logical. It doesn't matter if you are winning nuke war if your link chain is ridiculous.
Average Speaks: 28.0279412 Lowest- 26, Highest- 29.8. I have never given a 30 but you can change that.
Pref Cheat Sheet
Traditional Debate- 1
Slow, Policy-Style debate- 2
Complex Phil- 4
Friv Theory- 4
I have never sat on a panel if that matters to you.
I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- firstname.lastname@example.org
I like a good, reasonable argument
Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.
Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.
Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.
Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.
Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.
- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)
- in a similar vein, "this is why we win" or "we win this" (I understand how dropped arguments work)
- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)
- being rude to your opponent
- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.
Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!
I attend and debate for Rutgers University-Newark. I’ve ran both policy and K affs.
Influences In Debate
David Asafu – Adjae (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.
Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!
If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the winner based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.
In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging.
I live for performance debates.
I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average.
The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth!
You can run theory/ T/ Framework. I think they are great pocket arguments to have especially when an in round abuse has been committed, but if you plan on making this your full neg strat at a super advanced level, I am probably not the judge for you. Ensure to impact out your shells and extend that impact! Fairness is not a voter. Do not go for it as one in front of me. It is an internal link to something.
Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.
I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.
I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points. Literally!
Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once)
For My LD'ers
It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!
Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.
In general, give me judge instructions.
I am a former competitor of Extemporaneous Speaking and have some background in Public Forum. Spread all you want, go nuts
Hello! Here are my LD & Congress paradigms (I judge both regularly).
About me: I did mostly LD/sometimes Congress on the local Maine circuit all four years of high school from 2010-2014, and then did NFA-LD (and dabbled *extremely* vaguely in speech) at Lafayette College for three semesters before switching to coaching. This is my fourth year as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS. My B.A. is in political science & English, and I'm currently at UPenn for an M.S. in education and a social studies teacher residency program.
The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm cool with most arguments in round. I'm pretty tab- it's my job as a judge to evaluate everything you put in front of me, and above all I want you to run what you think is your best strategy! A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.
Speed: I can go however fast you want to go with the caveat that online tournaments are generally not conducive to top speed. I do keep a paper flow so I ask that you slow down slightly when reading plan text/authors/etc if you're going to be referring to/extending cards exclusively by author name. I'd like to be on the email chain (email@example.com).
DAs: I like disads and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't like when they have huge, totally unrealistic impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. If you're impacting to nuclear war in a round about plea bargaining, I'm not going to buy the link story. Impact calc is very important but make sure the impacts are realistic/we don't have to make huge jumps on the internal links-- debates are way more interesting when I'm voting on the risk of something that could actually happen. This, of course, does not apply if the resolution specifically lends itself to an extinction scenario, e.g. the nuclear weapons topic or an environmental topic, but you know where the line is! If you really want to run it it's not something I'll drop you for but I just don't enjoy these debates as much as more realistic scenarios.
T/Theory: I don't love a theory and especially a topicality debate because I know it's a timesuck like 97% of the time but if you must, you must. Please save it for instances of genuine abuse.
Traditional: I grew up on a traditional local circuit and this kind of round is near and dear to my heart. It's certainly not a preference, but I'm a good judge for this sort of thing. Please weigh & give me voters!
Other stuff of note (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. Ks? I wasn't a K debater and I am also several years out so I'm probably not as well versed in the lit as some other former debaters are, but I'm good with the basics and totally fine as long as you explain anything that's more niche. Plan affs? Absolutely. Performance affs? Go for it. I'm here to listen- just tell me where to vote.
And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an aggressive speaker, but keep it collegial before & after rounds, and please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting someone less experienced, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for. You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round. I will disclose and give oral critique if the tournament allows.
The short-ish version: I did Congress during my junior and senior years of high school (2012-2014) and it's what I primarily coach now. However, because of my LD-heavy background (and because like many other women in debate I too have known the pain of putting in the research only to get dropped for "sounding aggressive"), my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is, of course, an important part of the overall package, it is called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always, always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't providing something new or doesn't have the same quality of evidence. This may make me a little different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor!
Other notes: If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks. I love a fun intro as long as it is creative/specifically links to the topic (please I hate the generic canned ones). I will not hesitate to dock points for any speech under 2:45; use your full 3 minutes of allotted time to provide new content. I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair and knowledgeable and you'll rank.
For online tournaments (adding this after Princeton): I am fully aware this is a silly pet peeve but in an online format please ask the judges to give a non-verbal thumbs up when they're actively ready- don't do the thing where you say "is anyone not ready" and then immediately launch in. I am extremely sympathetic to the need to run a fast chamber, especially in elims! But I have ballots for 15 of you in a chamber, plus a separate flow for 15 competitors, plus the recency doc and the chamber Zoom that I'm going between throughout the whole session, so in an online setting I probably do need an extra ten seconds to get to where I need to be.
I am a parent and have been judging for the past three years. I appreciate clear, logical presentations that are well supported and prefer that you avoid theory arguments. I also value arguments made based on facts, rather than dramatics. Good luck, all!
I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.
I am ok with speed. I love k's and critical arguments when they are ran correctly.
Theory is fine with me as well as topicality but I need really good analysis on the violation and impacts back to standards.
Im really ok with any argument that isn't racist, sexist, or offensive in anyway.
I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.
email is: firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains
I am delighted to participate in the program.
Take your time presenting your arguments. Pace yourself so you can emphasize your points.
I look forward to your active participation and will support the best arguments presented.
I'm a former LD debater who has coached, judged, and worked in Tab at multiple tournaments for many years. I'm open to a wide variety of argumentation and types of cases. I'm definitely more traditional than progressive, but I'm very open-minded, and therefore it's totally up to you how you want to debate the resolution. I don't have any preconceived notions of arguments that I would categorically like to hear or not hear. Theory, when run well, can be very effective, but I tend to favor more traditional types of arguments. I can flow speed, but I think that speaking too quickly can be a hindrance to many debaters as opposed to an asset. For the sake of a clean, fair debate, it's critically important that your opponent and judge(s) can understand everything that you say. Your opponent shouldn't have to waste a third or more of their C-X time asking you to clarify your standards, contentions, card names, etc. In my view, that's not what debate is all about. Please be respectful of your opponent at all times and allow them to answer your C-X questions without constantly interrupting them. Solid, well articulated arguments are key, but it's important to be gracious and professional, too.
2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League
2018- present CSU Fullerton
email chain- email@example.com
TLDR- do what u like, usually/hopefully ur best at what u like the most.
Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.
Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.
Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.
Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.
Cross Ex- Tag team is fine. Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.
techy truth: I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.
Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.
Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.
Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness is an impact you should deal with. While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.
Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good, PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.
DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.
CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.
Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important.
-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink
-know where u are losing but make it fashion
-dont be a jerk
In terms of speed, I have no preference. The debate will be judged based on a few factors: weight of impacts in case, framing (not necessarily who has the better framework, but rather, who better defends their framework and relates it to case), and rebuttals (try not to drop any arguments). I also will not be judging based on my personal (political, economic, social, etc.) opinions, so focus on the quality of your debate, and you will be fine. While I do not have a preference with speed, please be clear and signpost before speeches. Finally, while I will be keeping time, but please keep your own time as well. good luck!
Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion&pathos will generally win my ballot.
Speed: Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; Constructives: fast + slow sign posting please; Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you.
College Parli -- Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic always tend to strike me as more persuasive. A unique procedural element of Parliamentary debate is the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time; debaters who utilize this tool to further conversational turns increasing analysis on a key issue usually impress me as well.
Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. Procedural fairness is probably the only fairness arguments I ultimately consider. And you play to win the game. Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer on FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you.
LD -- See Policy above, and also Parli for cross-examination analysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.
Public Forum -- In order to further value open access to debate, I try my best to adapt myself to public forum debates rather than expecting debaters to adapt to me as I do in the other debate events. Part of what will help me is to articulate the reasoning for preferring an interpretation, whether of a rule, a norm, macro-strategies, or anything else, so that I can evaluate with understanding. Follow claim-warrant-impact-weighing and speak with authority.
Please ask specific questions before the round if you have any.
So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.
Worlds @ Coppell:
I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.
To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.
Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:
I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.
Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.
Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.
PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:
A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);
B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES
C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.
D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.
Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.
POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.
If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!
I have extensive experience in most forms of debate that you see at the high school level. I competed mostly in PF and Congress, though also World Schools, Big Questions, and LD. Consider me a flay/flow judge.
I expect arguments that have a clear claim, warrant, impact structure, and the best way to get me to vote for you is to be extremely clear in your weighing, i.e. how you save more lives, how you uphold some moral principle, how your impacts are more likely to occur. Giving even a brief framework at the top of your case helps me with this, too.
Play nice, especially during cross--if you are being rude or overly aggressive, it will show in your speaks.
Debate is meant to be fun! So if you make me genuinely laugh that will also show in your speaks.
Don't abuse your time (prep and speaking) there are time constraints for a reason.
If there are any specific points of clarification, ask me before the round starts and I will be happy to answer them!
My name is Timothy Mooney, and I served as the Captain of the Debate side of my Speech and Debate, from 2010-2013, for Arthur L. Johnson Highschool. I periodically go in to provide assistance with my former team. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
When it comes to pacing, I personally prefer it to be on the slower side; details tend to get lost in understanding when debaters speak too fast. For this reason, I recommend a sense of control— you can speak somewhat fast, so long as you use that speed in moderation. Make certain I can hear your arguments, and you’ll do fine. On that note, I am very anti-Spreading (speaking extremely fast, with multitudes of arguments the opponent can fail to address), and want a clear, fair debate.
Make sure you have them. Give me a compelling debate if you differ in terms of how the key terms are defined. However, while a definition debate is good, I detest seeing it get very tedious. For instance, you have two very similar definitions, with one minor difference; don't spend the entire round arguing over why I should prefer this tiny detail to be included in the definition. Assume you have the same definition, and make your case. Your definition is going to have very little impact on how I make my verdict in this round.
When evaluating the round, I’ll be looking for a number of things: clear value debate (in Lincoln-Douglas), well-fought arguments and distinct warrants, voting issues, and (all things depending) the timing of the evidence. Lincoln-Douglas is defined by the values, and there needs to be explicit arguments for which should be used for the round. Debaters also need to try and refute most pieces of evidence and support that their opponent(s) bring up. Dropping entire contentions is a big no-no. Whether in Public Forum or Lincoln-Douglas. Voting issues are key in the final speech, and are a must. Tell me why I should be voting affirmative/negative. Lastly, timing is a bit of a variable; depending on the topic, timing of the evidence can be very crucial. But, if comparing an issue to something from decades ago, old evidence can be good.
I don’t mind if debaters wish to share evidence, if asked and approved by their opponent. However, the moment they receive that information, prep time will immediately begin.
Quite honestly, do what you're comfortable with, so long as I can understand what you're trying to get across. This is especially important if you plan to run a Counter-Plan (an alternative to the resolution, to meet the results the Affirmative is after more effectively)- You need to make sure you inform me that you are running this, somewhere in your speech.
A Lincoln Douglas or Public Forum debate should be considering their option as being implemented immediately, so understanding the local climate is essential. For example, explaining why a Federal Job Guarantee can work despite us being in a pandemic. Consider what we currently deal with, and how we could work around it. Or how current global events could impede the dictated resolution. This isn't required, but it is strongly recommended.
I'll be deciding based on a number of things: whether you could be understood while speaking, who I feel has won the value debate, who has better disputed their opponent's case, the practicality and likelihood of stated impacts (saying, for instance, x and y will lead to extinction, won't fly without sufficient warrants), and whichever side has made a more compelling case.
As I've experienced it in the past, be specific when beginning to list arguments; if you don't say something like "my first contention/argument is...", especially as the Negative speaker in LD, I might not know if you're doing rebuttal arguments or making your case to me.
Hey, if you're reading this I'm probably judging you soon; first things first thanks for looking this up rather than asking me what my paradigm/preference is. Second if you really don't want to read this everything can be summed up in two words, "DO YOU."
How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. If you don't do this I will try to flow arguments on the right flow but some arguments are bound to get lost so please try to stay clean. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.
By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. If you can't speak for 5 minutes about condo in the 2AR then don't go for condo; it's as simple as that. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.
I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.
I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.
I am a philosophy and political science major so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.
Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.
Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.
So I will only intervene in three instances. First if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Second I will shadow extend arguments into the 2R's (if you don't know what this means just ignore it). Third I will judge kick conditional arguments despite this I will be upset if you don't make it clear what you're going for.
- What gets you good speaks:
- Following the flow
- Making it easier for me to flow
- Making things interesting
- Clear spreading
- Productive CX
- What hurts your speaks:
- Being really boring
- Wasting CX or Preptime
- Being rude
I am currently a senior at Assumption College and a Political Science/Philosophy double major. I did 3 years of policy debate in high school, have been judging for 4 years and coaching on and off during that time. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.
Yes, I would like to be apart of the email chain. (email@example.com)
Yes, you can spread.
Yes, it can be open CX.
No, I don't care what arguments you read as long as you keep the space safe for everyone (including me)!
Winning = Offense (not just, at best, terminal defense) :)
Hey y’all I’m (obviously) Temitope (teh-me-toe-pay)!
Quick Things to Know ...
- DO NOT say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic. If you think your opponent has said something that could be one of these just make the argument and impact it out (it'll take like 30 seconds).
- I debated for Newark Science for 4 years and was primarily a K debater (do not take this to mean that I will vote up a queer anarchy k, anti-blackness k, etc. just because its read) but I ran everything from Kant to disclosure theory to Bataille to comedy (satire) to Afropess. I currently debate policy at Rutgers Newark :P
- I LOVED LOVED LOVED taking risks and encourage you all to do the same especially in front of me, just explain! (Don't push limits though and try to impact turn racism bad (unless you're black doing satire but even then you better be funny and/or enticing and it needs to have a distinct and well-explained purpose)).
- Impact out all of your arguments!
- Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient). As in, you should be grouping arguments and working to boil the debate down yourself. Yes, I love big pictures but there needs to be some actual substance too like you can't just read a 4-minute overview in the 1AR over multiple flows that don't engage anything and expect a ballot.
CPs are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). A clever PIC is always good but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff, especially against a K or Non-T aff.
DAs are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.
- I'm also not as persuaded by nuclear war impacts. You can try, just have a good internal link story.
Ks are my favorite! BUT I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook", so err on the side of over-explanation (esp. if you're reading the philosophy of a long-dead French white dude). Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions, and you got my ballot!
FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on it, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW interp/debate model and compare it to the aff's.
I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory especially if the violation is unreasonable.
- Fairness is NOT a voter
- I will likely buy condo bad if it's more than 5 off.
Tricks (or Trix or Spikes) have to actually be won. You can't just have terminal defense and claim that you've "won" that layer. No, you just didn't lose that layer but not losing does NOT equal winning. Since y'all mostly collapse to max 3 spikes, you need to do a better analysis of the offensive reasons of why you win.
** A large pet peeve of mine are over-explained roadmaps. Just say the pages! EX. "case --> counterplan --> disad" instead of "framework on the aff then the 2nd contention then the first contention then the underview then..."
I have a lot of experience competing in debate as a high school and college student (30 years), so you can expect me to be passionate about the issues you are speaking for and against but I will not bring personal preferences into debate like some other judges. I judge various events so here is a general outline of what I am looking for in a speech:
1. Passion - no matter what I want to see that you care about what you are speaking about. If this is lacking you can expect a poor ballot.
2. Good Arguments - when I have a tie between two capable and passionate debaters, this is where I go to break the tie. If you repeat arguments expect a poor ballot. Also note for formats like WSD and LD, I will try my best to flow the round, but you need to tell me arguments are dropped. I look for sound reasoning and logic flow in all of the debates and in LD, PF and other evidence based debates I will be asking you to read all of your cards.
3. Inflection and Voice - If I lose interest during your speech you are doing something wrong. Keep me engaged throughout. If you lose me when you are describing an argument you will not be on my flow and I will drop that argument completely.
4. Any type of rudeness and any chance at cutting other competitors speaking time (especially for POs in congress) will result in the lowest rank possible. RESPECT PRONOUNS and POI choices.
CX @ Newton High School 2012 - 2016
NFA LD @ WKU 2016 - 2020
Debate at its core is a game of strategy and persuasion. If your arguments are strategic and persuasive, they are a fine path to the ballot. Paradigms can overly restrict that game and force you into a strategy you are less comfortable with, therefore my paradigm probably only matters in close rounds - if you decimate someone on an argument that I despise (ASPEC), I won't arbitrarily throw it from the debate. But know that my opinions about arguments will start to influence my decisions when claims are more robustly tested.
NFA-LD Disclosure: Your speaker points will never be higher than a 27 if you are not fully disclosed on both the AFF and the NEG. This does not include arguments you have not broken of course.
Speaks: They are rewarded based on bold strategic maneuvers, clever argumentation, persuasiveness, quality time allocation, and not saying things that are egregiously offensive.
You Should Read: DAs, Condo CPs, T, Ks, Case Defense, and Impact Turns.
You Can Read: Non-T AFFs, Delay CP Bad Theory, Consult CP Bad Theory, and I guess ESPEC.
Don't Read: RVIs, Non-Resolutional AFFs, Slimy Spikes, and basically most Random Theory Arguments.
Favorite Debates to Judge: Impact turns, Kritiks, Case + DA.
Where my decision begins: I tend to believe that the ballot does nothing but reward a win to the better debater. The better debater is the person who convinced me that the resolution was either desirable or not desirable through superior argumentation/persuasion. My default is to evaluate whether the argument proves or disproves the desirability of resolutional action. When I say resolutional action, I mean you can make a case for topicality being a bad constraint, but affirmatives that do not make their critique in reference to the resolution in some way (most of your theory should be about immigration on an immigration topic) will face an uphill battle for my ballot. If your advocacy doesn't attempt to rethink immigration in some way but deals with an entirely different subject, I will be very generous toward the negative. The negative can also be guilty of this; arguments that do not answer the question of the resolution are almost always illogical and I do not find them particularly compelling. For example, a "control F" word kritik of some phrase in a card is not a logical answer to the resolution, it's an evidence indict, but a word PIC that puts offense on a certain word or phrase in the plan text is logical to me because it disproves the desirability of the plan.
Tldr; cap, afropess, security, pomo stuff, etc. is cool. Some critique about NFA in general being bad is whack.
Speed: Clarity is really important to me, but I do not have problems with speed itself. Blipping through theory/analytics with no clarity, pen time, or sign posting is an easy way for me to miss key arguments. Speed is probably never a voter, although it is possible to convince me otherwise. Spreading a debater out and going for dropped arguments is a legitimate strategy in most rounds. I believe people can incorporate criticisms of speed into a kritik that answers the desirability of resolutional action, simply make better arguments than your opponent, or punish horizontal strategies with turns.
Kritiks: If you are interested in specific link arguments and well thought out alternatives, I will be one of the better judges for you on these arguments. I am in a PhD program for political theory, so I tend to be well read on this literature unless you are venturing into pure metaphysics or abstract aesthetics. However, this often means I am more cognizant of the policy tricks, and will be able to tell if they bested you on them. If your link to a big stick heg AFF is a dusty edelman 95 state bad link card, you're in a rough spot. I believe that links contextual for me a different way of thinking about the world than the affirmative; it's your only way to describe how the alt relates to the affirmative. The more general your links are, the easier it is for the AFF to beat you on contextual nuance. Instead of just a generic state bad card, specific links from trans IR, Afropess, etc. about the topic would go a lot further in convincing me that there is some alternative arrangement of immigration that is possible and I should hold out for.
DAs: They win debates. 1NR depth is highly rewarded, although I'm open to debates over what cards or extrapolations the 1NR gets, considering that these 2 card tix DAs that morph into 9 card scenarios with specific links feel kind of new.
T: Although technical superiority matters, I often think that people lack persuasiveness with T collapses and it hurts the argument quite a bit. I need a vision for the topic to really hang my hat on. While definition distinction and clarity will make for the cleanest win (I love to see a lot of 1NR cards on definition distinctions), more generic T arguments are fine as well. With the event time constraints, the AFF is often likely to lose a good T debate unless they go all in on a couple arguments in the 2AR, so I would suggest that they do.
Case: I am somewhat of a case connoisseur. It is an underdeveloped skill that often make or breaks rounds. You always need offense to win, although it doesn't have to be much if your case debate is really clean. Terminal defense doesn't exist and won't trigger presumption for me.
CPs: For some reason CPs aren't very popular in NFA-LD, which makes no sense because they are probably one of the most strategic arguments possible. I don't think that all NBs need to be consistent with every CP in your strategy (ie you can read a states CP with its own NB and also read an ADV CP with its own NB). I will judge kick after the debate if I think the squo is a better option unless explicitly told I should not do so.
Conditionality: Neg probably gets multiple conditional positions plus the squo, although I can be convinced otherwise. With the time constraints of this event, I really feel for the AFF with 3 or more conditional positions. I don't think that 1NR uniqueness CPs are legitimate since a rebuttal is not another constructive, but if the AFF isn't interested in debating that, go for it.
Non-T AFFs: I think that topicality is probably good for the game of debate. I like affirmatives that find ways to use literature within the resolution by utilizing revolutionary fiat powers. Whether or not the affirmative gets to fiat large structural changes within the topic to the United States is often a question of fiat power, not topicality. AFFs that disregard the resolution to talk about a whole other topic, I am not very sympathetic to. AFFs that talk about immigration, but critique topicality or governmental action as a procedural constraint I tend to worry about the sustainability of, although I am not unfair to them in the debate. I am not entirely convinced that non-topical AFFs get perms, but that has to be debated for me to care.
FW: I often find myself being more persuaded by framework standards like fairness far more than standards like portable skills. TVAs aren't necessary to win FW debates. The best FW strategies in my opinion tend to be unapologetic in their exclusion of the affirmative - tell me why their AFF just can't be in the topic instead of some "half in, half out" mental acrobatic.
Impact Turns: Probably one of my favorite debates to watch when executed well. I don't find human death good to be particularly persuasive unless outweighed by some larger utilitarian impact (which preferably is some larger event of human death).
Theory: It's mostly frivolous. The only time its somewhat persuasive is when it answers something about the resolution. I guess plan specification arguments are Ok sometimes, although you really have to have some evidence that explains how incoherent their plan is instead of weird arbitrary standards of specificity.
1AR Theory: I'm not going to say that I like it, but sometimes CP theory is necessary to protect yourself from some weird strategies. Ranked from best shells to worst shells: Consult Bad, Delay Bad, Condo Bad, Agent Bad, PICs Bad.
Spikes: I don't think they are actually as strategic as people think since it essentially trades more AFF offense for defense that may not answer anything. I will evaluate them unless they are blippy and spread out through the doc where I can't really flow them. If you read a "no war" spike out of the AFF and the NEG reads a DA with a war impact, the NEG did not concede the AFF argument, they are reading a "yes - war does happen" card. Odds are, their topic DA will be much more contextual to the question of war concerning immigration than the AFF's one card will be. However, it does clarify the situation if the NEG explains that their card answers the AFF card. It doesn't affect the round much, but I must say that spikes really ruin the persuasive narrative of the AFF and oftentimes just seem slimy. NEGs are encouraged to simply dismiss RVIs or arguments that suggest that the NEG doesn't get to read topicality because there is no chance I am voting on them.
Performative Aspects of Debate: To be frank, I was never a debater who cared much about the aggressiveness of my opponent in the round, so debaters ought to speak up about things like CX getting too heated because my bar might be a lot different. Nobody should feel so uncomfortable by the tone of a round that they want to leave. With that being said, there is nothing wrong with debaters performing their confidence and throwing a bit of shade at each other. I tend to think that a large part of persuasiveness is perceptually winning.
Post-Rounding: Not offended by it if it's reasonable. Probably a good practice for holding judges accountable.
I’m Tibor Rohacs I’m a lay judge; this is my third season judging. Please try not to talk too fast (no spreading). I like well organized and clear cases. I will reward clear and straightforward framework/contentions; try to spend less time on abstract statement and more on specific arguments for your case; use real life / realistic examples and scenarios. Make sure to summarize and emphasize in your last speeches the key arguments why I should vote for you and not your opponent. Other than that your goal is to convince me through evidence, logic and reason.
Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith
Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).
I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Time each other including each other’s prep time
Please email me the speech docs & any evidence read (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time firstname.lastname@example.org
Flex prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)
PF PEOPLE: I hope you please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! I would run disclosure theory every round (“drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational”) that my opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).
Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney, Elmo or Daniel Day Lewis if you so choose.
I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.
I participated in LD debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms.
I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us).
PRACTICES I LIKE:
- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.
-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.
- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).
-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.
- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).
- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.
PRACTICES I DISLIKE:
- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).
- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.
- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.
- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).
Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)
If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve and grow through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!
I am a game theorist and policy-maker judge. I will accept any arguments so long as you can prove that they are relevant and entail resolution-unique impacts. My background is in logic, rhetoric, and philosophy so I expect arguments to be well constructed with sound reasoning. I like to see progressive clash in crossfire rather than questions aimed at clarification or expository discourse. It is my belief that a debate simply cannot be won on content alone so I place equal weight on framework (theoretical) arguments and case (empirical/evidential) arguments. My win condition for debate is not only how well versed you are on a particular topic but also how well you can debate objectively; some criteria for this evaluation are effective use of turns and blocks, effective construction of counterexamples, effective elucidation of advantages and disadvantages of argument validation, effective elucidation of fallacious argumentative methodology, etc.
I was a performance debater so naturally I am drawn more to performance/critical debates, but this is not about me its about you. So, debate however makes you feel comfortable.
Traditional debaters: I have NEVER been a traditional debater so overviews are very helpful because I am not up to date on things like politics D/A's or how much political capital the president has etc., So flushing those things out will greatly help your chances in the debate.
I am not a huge framework judge. That means it is up to you to prove to me that it is abusive, or that there is a topical version of their aff.
1. Do YOU!
2. I understand that being negative you only have to prove that the aff is bad, however, in those scenarios you need to explain why that alone is enough, because I like ways to fix things or at least try.
3. Don't make me vote on framework! Show me that your aff is reasonably topical/ or could never be topical, or why you being topical is bad.
4. I LOVE OVERVIEWS
Who I vote for is largely going to come down to who tells the best cohesive story at the end of the debate.
Also, in any debate I love historical or just examples in general of how things play out in the real world.
Teach me something, express yourself, have fun, make me laugh, don't be mean.
I was a public forum second speaker for three years at Randolph High School.
I flow the round but am overall pretty relaxed on technicalities. Make sure the things you want me to vote on are in summary and final focus.
No spreading please.
I am not very familiar with LD and have never competed it. Regardless, I will flow everything you say and do my best to make a fair decision. Don't get too fancy if possible. Thanks!
Did PF in high school and Parli for a year in college.
To be honest, just debate how you like. I have some loose preferences, but they probably won't make or break the round.
• Prioritize analysis over just stacking cards/evidence.
• Speed is generally fine, but slow down on specific cards/warrants you really want to emphasize to make sure I flow it.
• Not the best with Theory/K's.
• Please don't forget to weigh.
• Please be respectful to myself and your opponent(s).
• Really sucks that I have to say this, but any racist/sexist/other bigoted language obviously won't be tolerated.
Feel free to ask for anything else before the round.